Voices from the Classroom: Reflections on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 9781442603059

Citation preview

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM Reflections on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

This page intentionally left blank

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM Reflections on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Edited by Janice Newton Jerry Ginsburg Jan Rehner Pat Rogers Susan Sbrizzi John Spencer

Garamond Press

cst centre for the support of teaching

© Centre for the Support of Teaching,York University, 2001 No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review. Printed and bound in Canada A joint publication of Garamond Press and the Centre for the Support of Teaching, York University. Distributed by special arrangement with York University Bookstore, York Lanes, York University, Toronto, Ont. M3J 1P3 Canada.

CSt

The Centre for the Support of Teaching was established at York University in 1989 to provide advocacy for excellence and innovation in teaching and to promote teaching that invigorates the learning environment for centreforthestudents..The Centre coordinates a broad range of programmes and teaching strategies to promote reflective practice and scholarly dialogue on teaching and learning among faculty and graduate students. [email protected] www.yorku.ca/cst/

Garamond Press 63 Mahogany Court, Aurora, Ontario L4G 6M8 [email protected] www.garamond.ca

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Voices from the Classroom: reflections on teaching and learning in higher education Co-published by the Centre for the Support of Teaching, York University. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-55193-031-5 1. College teaching. 2. Learning. I. Newton, Janice, 1952- II. York University (Toronto, Ont.). Centre for the Support of Teaching LB2331.V64 2001

378.1'25

C2001-930157-X

Table of Contents Introduction: Responsibility, Respect, Research and Reflection in Higher Education SECTION I: POWER, DIVERSITY AND EQUITY IN THE CLASSROOM

1 5

Introduction

6

Part One: Student Voices Gender, Power and Silence in the Classroom: Our Experiences Speak for Themselves Fog and Frustration: The Graduate Student Experience "Dissertation Dementia": Reflections on One Woman's Graduate Experience

7 7 18 21

Part Two: Teachers' Voices Power in the Classroom The University Classroom: From Laboratory to Liberatory Education Diversity in the Classroom: Engagement and Resistance Responsibility and Respect in Critical Pedagogy Feminist Pedagogy: Paradoxes in Theory and Practice Teaching "Women and Men in Organizations": Feminist Pedagogy in the Business School Empowering Students Through Feminist Pedagogy Heterosexism in the Classroom DisABILITY in the Classroom: The Forgotten Dimension of Diversity? Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities Avoiding the Retrofitted Classroom: Strategies for Teaching Students with Disabilities Adult Students English-as-a-Second-Language Students

25 25 40 45 54 58

SECTION II: THEORIES AND MODELS OF STUDENT LEARNING

97

Introduction

63 68 75 79 85 89 93 95

98 v

Teaching Styles/Learning Styles: The Myers Briggs Model The Gregorc Model of Learning Styles Student Development: From Problem Solving to Problem Finding Using Theories about Student Learning to Improve Teaching SECTION III: COURSE DESIGN

99 105 110 118 127

Introduction Course Planning: From Design to Active Classroom Developing and Teaching a Science Course: A Junior Faculty Member's Perspective The Dialectic of Course Development: I Theorize, They React... and Then? Beyond Bare Facts: Teaching Goals in Science "Why Didn't He Just Say It?": Getting Students Interested in Language SECTION IV: WORKING WITH GRADUATE STUDENTS Introduction Graduate Supervisory Practices Working Together: The Teaching Assistant-Professor Relationship Working with Teaching Assistants Issues for International Teaching Assistants SECTION V: ACADEMIC HONESTY Introduction Academic Dishonesty Plagiarism and Student Acculturation: Strangers in the Strange Lands of our Disciplines Plagiarism and the Challenge of Essay Writing: Learning from our Students Honesty in the Laboratory Electronic Plagiarism: A Cautionary Tale SECTION VI: TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGIES

128 129 133 136 139 141 145 146 147 153 157 159 161 162 163 166 171 177 179 181

Introduction

182

Part One: Lecturing Effective Lecturing Techniques Improving Large-Class Lecturing Improving Student Learning in Lectures

184 184 188 197

VI

Part Two: Class Participation Dead Silence... A Teacher's Nightmare Evoking and Provoking Student Participation Resistance in the Classroom Computer-Mediated Communication: Some Thoughts about Extending the Classroom

210

Part Three: Seminars, Tutorials and Small-Group Learning Study Group Guide for Instructors and Teaching Assistants Warm-Ups: Lessening Student Anxiety in the First Class Small is Beautiful: Using Small Groups to Enhance Student Learning Integrating Group Work into our Classes Scrapbook Presentations: An Exercise in Collaborative Learning The Field Walk Teaching with Cases Stages in Group Dynamics The Joy of Seminars The Office Hour: Not Just Crisis Management Negotiating Power in the Classroom: The Example of Group Work

215 215 225 227 231 235 241 244 247 249 252 255

SECTION VII: ASSIGNMENTS AND EVALUATION

200 200 202 206

267

Introduction

268

Part One: Reading When No One Has Done the Reading A Strategy for Encouraging Students to do Readings Telling a Book by Its Cover The Sherlock Holmes Approach to Critical Reading (Or How to Help Students Become Good "Detextives")

270 270 272 274

Part Two: Research Essays and Other Writing Assignments Sequencing Assignments An Experiment in Writing and Learning Groups Paper Chase: The Sequel Working with Students'Writing What Happens After You Say, "Please Go to the Writing Centre"?

282 282 285 288 291 295

Part Three: Grading and Evaluation Evaluating Student Writing: Problems and Possibilities Fast, Fair and Constructive: Grading in the Mathematical Sciences An Individualized Approach to Teaching and Evaluation

298 298 303 306

vii

279

The Norwegian Motivator, or How I Make Grading Work for Me and My Students

316

SECTION VIII: DEVELOPING AND ASSESSING YOUR TEACHING... 319 Introduction

320

Part One: Classroom Assessment Improving Student Learning Through Feedback: Classroom Assessment Techniques The One-Minute Paper...Two Success Stories Developing the One-Minute Paper

321

Part Two: Mid-Course Evaluation Formative Evaluation Surveys Facilitating Student Feedback Feedback Strategies

330 330 333 336

Part Three: Collegial Consultation Peer Pairing Peer Pairing in French Studies

338 338 340

Part Four: Teaching Evaluation Guide

344

Part Five: Teaching Documentation Guide

361

321 324 326

369

CONTRIBUTORS

Vlll

Acknowledgements This book is the result of a community project initiated, designed and coordinated by York University's Centre for the Support of Teaching under the leadership of the Academic Director, Pat Rogers. A large number of people have contributed to the project's success along the way, most notably the members of the editorial committee: Jerry Ginsburg, Janice Newton, Jan Rehner, Pat Rogers, Sue Sbrizzi and John Spencer. John Spencer chaired the editorial committee for the first year. Janice Newton assumed the chair's role during John's sabbatical and continued in this role until the project's successful completion. We would like to express our heartfelt appreciation to everyone who participated in the production and publication of this work. We thank each of the authors - faculty, students and administrators without whom this book would not be completed - for taking the time to share their thoughts, ideas and insights. In addition, we would like to thank the staff and associates of the Centre for the Support of Teaching who provided excellent support, guidance and feedback throughout the course of this project, especially James Brown, Susan Cohen, John Dwyer, Olivia Petrie, Gail Vanstone and Diane Zorn. We would also like to thank our publishers, Peter Saunders of Garamond Press and Michael Jackel of the York University Bookstore, for their belief in the value of this work and their advice and guidance in bringing it to publication.

IX

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction Responsibility, Respect, Research and Reflection in Higher Education Janice Newton

Founded in 1959, York University is situated in one of the largest cities in North America. With a reputation for innovation in both teaching and research, York attracts students from a wide social spectrum to its two campuses. Many students are the first from their families to attend university; many are first-generation immigrants or refugees. All social classes are represented, as are a variety of groups with different disabilities. The diversity extends to different languages, sexualities, ages, religions and cultures. With more than 50,000 students in ten faculties, an ongoing challenge for faculty and teaching assistants at York is finding effective ways to teach and serve the needs of such a diverse student body. This book is a project of York's Centre for the Support of Teaching and while its original intent was to encourage good teaching practices among faculty and teaching assistants at York, we hope instructors at other universities will also find it useful. The voices within these pages reflect the broad diversity of our community - the articles are authored by undergraduate and graduate students, teaching assistants, contract and full-time faculty, staff and administrators. Though the topics span a continuum from the theoretical to the practical, issues of equity, diversity and power form the foundation of our community's thinking about pedagogy. The book begins with three articles written by students, graduate and undergraduate, who speak critically of their experiences in a university environment. Their voices provide a valuable reminder that if our task is to teach the students we have, we have a responsibility to begin by listening to and respecting what they have to say. Subsequent articles in Section I speak to the different ways that respect for student diversity and student concerns has been taken to heart and prompts our teaching community to reflect on teaching practices. In a fundamental way, the challenge of teaching on such ethnically and racially diverse campuses has enormously enriched our reflections on pedagogy. In this spirit, we believe that this book, though written 1

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

by students and faculty from one university, has broader appeal to the university teaching community across North America. The challenges we face in the twenty-first century are challenges we have in common with many large urban campuses across North America. We offer this book as a contribution to reflections on pedagogy in university-level teaching for those in comparably diverse communities. Effective teaching at the university level is not just about responding to demographic changes in the student body as it transforms apace with Canadian society. It is also about curriculum. We do not rethink our curriculum and pedagogy simply to appeal to the range of students in our classrooms. We rethink pedagogy and curriculum because the world of knowledge has changed. History is a good example. Do we introduce immigrant history into our curriculum simply because we now see immigrant students in our classes? That might be one impetus, but aside from the students in our classes, we have a responsibility to teach current understandings of knowledge in our disciplines. Canadian history did not unfold in the absence of women, immigrants, racial minorities or aboriginal Canadians. We should not teach it as if it did, regardless of who sits in our classrooms. This points to the complex tensions between paradigm shifts within disciplines and transformations in pedagogy. If one does not teach in a discipline in which societal change is central to the curriculum, is rethinking pedagogy irrelevant or unnecessary? On the contrary, as many authors in this book will attest, the challenges of teaching in any discipline require us to engage students in the material. If we take our responsibility to promote student learning seriously, then we need to think about ways of teaching that appeal to the multiplicity of differences among students in our classes, from different learning styles or stages of intellectual development to different racial, gender or class experiences. The articles in this book do not include only success stories. Articles on teaching can annoy when they talk about techniques or theories in glowing terms without talking about their drawbacks, or outright failures. If we are to progress and develop effective pedagogy in a university setting, we must develop a scholarly approach to our teaching practices. We must examine what works as well as what does not work and share the results of our reflections and research in teaching. A number of authors in this book write courageously about teaching experiences that backfired or had disappointing outcomes. The value of these discussions is that they echo, in a realistic way, the actual practice of teaching in university. Many of us have had similar experiences of trying new teaching strategies in our classes, only to be disappointed. It can be a challenge to find a collegial environment in which to discuss these experiences. A lucky few might feel comfortable turning to departmental colleagues - those who judge us for tenure and promotion, who eye our teaching practices and evaluations in relation to their own—to discuss their experiences; many do not. Without a collegial venue for reflecting on our successes and failures, the overall teaching environment is weakened.

2

Introduction We need to bring to our university teaching the spirit of scholarly inquiry that each of us brings to our discipline. In science, an experiment that fails to support a hypothesis is not wasted knowledge; it contributes to what we already know and helps to inform the direction of the next step in research. Experiments often have unintended results that turn out to be more valuable than the intended result. We need to think of our teaching practices in a similar light and use our research skills to assess our teaching practices. Another important question recurs throughout the book: What are our teaching goals? If one takes this question seriously, simply covering the course material is clearly an inadequate goal. We need to link that goal with the crucial question, Are the students learning? Once we incorporate student learning into our teaching goals, a different set of priorities begins to emerge. We hope this book contributes to reflections about the relationship between teaching goals and the strategies used to achieve those goals. The book is divided into eight sections. Section I, Power, Diversity and Equity in the Classroom, includes articles on power, gender, race, feminist pedagogy, heterosexism, disability, adult education and teaching English as a second language. Section II, Theories and Models of Student Learning, introduces several different theories of learning, including the Myers Briggs model, which associates learning styles with psychological types, the Gregorc model and the models of Perry and Belenky. Each of these articles provides useful perspectives on how theories of learning can inform our teaching practices. Section III, Course Design, introduces a range of issues that can be brought to bear when designing a course, including perspectives from the sciences and the humanities. Section IV, Working With Graduate Students, highlights two dimensions of the graduate learning experience: as students in a discipline and as apprentice teachers. Section V, Academic Honesty, focuses on an important but often overlooked dimension of university teaching. The articles discuss different ways to understand issues of academic integrity and stress the importance of teaching to prevent academic dishonesty in different settings, such as essay writing, laboratory experiments and the use of electronic sources. Section VI, Teaching and Learning Strategies, covers a broad range of teaching strategies, including lecturing, class participation, seminars, tutorials and group learning. Section VII, Assignments and Evaluation, offers ideas on a variety of assignments, including reading and research essays, as well as a section on grading and evaluation in different disciplinary contexts. Finally, Section VIII, Developing and Assessing Your Teaching, describes a variety of ways to obtain feedback on teaching performance from students and colleagues, and includes both the Teaching Evaluation Guide and the Teaching Documentation Guide developed by York's Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning. We trust that this book will be useful both as a handbook, to be dipped into when one needs specific advice on a particular teaching issue, and as a broader reference source on university teaching. The works cited at the end of many articles offer a 3

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM wealth of suggestions for further reading on specific topics. In these pages, both the novice teaching assistant and the seasoned professor will find ideas that are useful and stimulating. We hope that this book serves to remind us of our responsibility to teach the diverse range of students before us, to respect their unique needs and experiences as they embark on the path of higher education, to bring our skills as researchers to our teaching practices, and to engage in ongoing reflection on the task of universitylevel teaching.

4

INTRODUCTION TO SECTION I

This section is devoted to exploring the pedagogical implications of teaching a diverse student body. How can we teach in a way that promotes learning for all students? To do this, we must consider who the students in our classes are. What knowledge and experiences do they bring with them? How does this shape the balance of power in the classroom? In what ways does this enhance or interfere with the learning process? How should this knowledge influence our teaching practices? We open this section with three articles reflecting students' perspectives on their learning experiences. In the essay by Markka Fleming et al., we hear students discuss the different ways they have felt silenced or disempowered during their undergraduate experiences. The two articles that follow address graduate students' experiences. The perspectives offered in all three articles are very critical, challenging us to reconsider our pedagogical goals and revealing implicit biases that can occur in our teaching practices, classrooms and curricula. Further, these student voices remind us how vulnerable students can feel, even those whom we think are most likely to succeed. Listening to student voices is the first step in meeting the challenge of developing inclusive teaching practices. We must engage with the full implications of diversity and power dynamics in our pedagogical practices and keep returning to the task of clarifying our teaching goals — from first-year to graduate teaching. The articles that follow are written by faculty and teaching assistants who take up this challenge. The range of issues they cover is quite broad, beginning with the cornerstone piece by Linda Briskin, "Power in the Classroom." Briskin outlines the different forms that power can take in a classroom, opening the way for us to consider how power dynamics can diminish a learning environment and create complex inequities within it. Subsequent articles focus on antiracist pedagogy, feminist pedagogy, heterosexism, disability, adult learning and English as a second language. Our student body is diverse in many ways: men and women with a range of experiences from different cultures, with different first languages, some with learning disabilities or physical disabilities and some straight, gay or lesbian. Not all of this diversity is visible at first glance, nor do visual clues provide a sound basis for making assumptions about individual students. Each student brings an invisible quality to the classroom: a unique set of life experiences that, as the article by Leslie Sanders reminds us, can profoundly shape a student's interaction in a course. While reflecting on how diversity might shape our teaching practices, several authors caution against making assumptions about individual students. In the end, a recurrent theme emerges: Effective university teachers must respect the diverse needs and identities of students and create conditions in their courses in which all students can learn. In short, respecting diversity is the starting point of sound pedagogy.

6

Part One: Student Voices

Gender, Power and Silence in the Classroom: Our Experiences Speak for Themselves Markita Fleming, Nadia Habib, Tina Horley, Sabynthe Jones-Caldwell, Maria, Kathie Moules, Lori Waserman andSamantha Wehbi

It never occurred to me that the classroom wasn't a neutral space. I always thought that we all received basically the same education. But in an economics course, the male students were given all the professor's time and attention, while the female students were repeatedly cut off. I was so angry and so alienated that I didn't know what to do or how to make myself heard and I didn't feel safe enough to ask questions. I eventually dropped out of economics altogether.1 As a man thinking about gender in the classroom, I was initially confronted by the dilemma that there seemed to be few examples of how gender relations influenced my own academic development. It occurred to me, however, that this was no accident. It is not just that men experience gender differently from women (in the classroom and elsewhere), but that we experience it largely as an "absence." It appears as something that is solely someone else's problem, or at best as a concern for the welfare of others. The impetus to write this article arose out of our experiences as sixteen women and one man completing an assignment on gender in the classroom for a fourth-year seminar on feminist thought. Sharing our work revealed that our individual experiences were not isolated, chance incidents. Although we had known that, for the most part, the classroom is not a neutral place, theorizing these experiences uncovered the deeply systemic character of discrimination. Depending on our gender, race, class and sexual orientation, we discovered that we are heard differently and hear differently; as a result, we take away with us more lessons than we are consciously taught. We are angry. Audre Lorde reminds us that:

7

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

My fear of anger taught me nothing. Every woman has a well-stocked arsenal of anger potentially useful against those oppressions, personal and institutional, which brought that anger into being. Focused with precision it can become a powerful source of energy serving progress and change (1984, 127). We want to share our experiences in the hope of breaking through the isolation that others like us might feel. We want to mobilize our "arsenal of anger" to effect change. Whether they like it or not, students and professors bring into the classroom attitudes that reflect their gender, race and class. Gender, race and class are not neutral. They are systems of power and domination. They are reinforced by legislation, economics, cultural roles, social interactions, political systems and sexual taboos. They are also played out in the conventional teaching system. Female students are in a subordinate position and are discouraged from challenging professors and male colleagues. This is supported by a gender system that socially constructs a dichotomy of masculine and feminine roles, which we come to see as "natural." However, gender is not natural; it is not determined by biological sex but varies according to culture and shifts historically. Being aware of the social and historical nature of gender systems does not mean that the roles assigned to men and women can be escaped easily. Women are struggling to break away from the gendered processes that silence them. In educational institutions, the success of such a struggle will depend on a new set of practices that includes and reflects the experiences of women and people of different races, classes and sexual orientations. It will also depend on challenging the traditional understanding of power in the classroom. It is assumed that power originates with the instructor and is directed towards a room of non-gendered, nonclassed, non-raced "learners." The power relations in the classroom are hidden under the guise of liberal notions of democracy, truth, rationality, knowledge, science, individualism, objectivity and education. Contrary to popular belief, such notions do not create equality but are part of an ideology that perpetuates inequality. In fact, what is passed off as "neutrality" in classroom practices and "objectivity" in curriculum privileges the experiences and validates the intellectual concerns of white, middleclass, heterosexual men. The problematization of these notions, which are deeply embedded in our society, would provide a radical critique of course material, teaching style, student interaction and the purpose of education. We challenge students to begin the process of naming their experiences in order to release the anger and despair that can be so debilitating when turned inwards against the self. We challenge the faculty to address the unquestioned assumptions that classrooms, curriculum and teaching practices are neutral. We challenge administration to respond to our concerns. We let our experiences speak for themselves in the following excerpts from the seventeen essays that were submitted on gender in the classroom.

8

Gender, Power and Silence in the Classroom

Just Try Speaking Out When four female students gave a presentation on the topic of the police and domestic violence, a male student challenged one of the speakers. He accused her of being a man-hater and of trying to crucify all police officers. She defended herself by saying that she was only trying to point out that often the police don't arrest batterers when they should. The debate turned into an argument. At one point the male student said, "I'm impressed by your enthusiasm but arguments are based on facts." Finally, the male professor intervened with the "facts," which clearly supported the female speaker's argument. His intervention implied that his input was necessary to validate her argument. The male student was not reprimanded for trying to humiliate and discredit the speaker by portraying her as an emotional, irrational woman. In one of my classes, in which I was the only woman, I became so disgusted with the intellectual subservience and lack of vigorous thinking on the part of the students that, feeling I had little to lose except grades and much to gain in terms of personal integrity, I began to pose questions in each class. What I did not expect were the violent reactions of the male students. The professor did not have to answer my questions because the male students would respond before I had finished a sentence. The attacks were aimed at me personally rather than at the points I was raising. This pattern of attack became so vicious that even the professor referred to having to "hold back the wolves" in order to get in a word to respond to my questions. Later, a fellow student approached me. He wondered if I realized that I was jeopardizing my grades; he told me that a professor does not want to hear "some woman shoot him down in front of a bunch of men." By the end of the year I felt like I had just barely survived an experience of male academic violence. I have found that female students react negatively to feminist students out of fear of being labeled a feminist or a lesbian. These fears are substantiated by some men's reactions to feminists. Upon learning that a particular female student was a feminist, a male student attempted to invade her privacy with questions such as "Do you shave your legs?" and "Do you sleep with men?" This initial attempt at intimidation was followed by sexist comments for the rest of the year. I remember the last time I ever spoke in a women's studies class. A response by a male student was so degrading that I told him to shut his mouth. I expected the teacher to support me because this had been going on all year. The teacher did intervene; however, her comment was directed at my behaviour. She said, "I will not tolerate that type of behaviour in my class." I was silenced for the rest of the year. The male student proved that in the end he was still the more powerful.

9

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

What Constitutes Knowledge? One of my courses centred around problems with urban planners, architects and those people working to "build communities." Another student, who was also a sole-support mother with a small baby, and I had just spent a year negotiating the city streets, parks and public buildings. We brought up accessibility as an issue that had a particular impact on women and children. Instead of responding by including such observations as valid and useful, the male professor responded by stating that gender had nothing to do with accessibility. In a screen-writing workshop in which eleven students were women and nine were men, the male professor asked us to submit a proposal for a documentary on an issue of our choice. I submitted a proposal on women's ambivalent feelings towards motherhood. The professor's initial response to this proposal was that, in his opinion, "Motherhood is not an issue. All the women I have known have enjoyed it." The professor also expressed concern about whether the issue of motherhood would speak to a wide enough audience, yet the professor approved a proposal by a male student to do a documentary on plumbing. This male student was not asked if his issue spoke to a wide enough audience. For women, the legitimacy of the content of our work is often the focus of criticism. For men, the focus of the criticism is often only on the form, not on the content of their work. This particular professor was in no way intentionally biased. As a matter of fact, he always attempted to be as open as possible, but his perspective -white and male -kept him blind to issues that did not have primacy for him. In the three hours it took to briefly summarize our proposals, lessons were learned by the entire class about what is worthy of documentation and what is not. Such lessons further drive women and their lived experiences to the margins. Most of my economics professors have never addressed the issues of race and racism and how they have an impact on economic relations. As a result, most of the class material is not relevant to my experience. Recently these professors have begun to talk about women in the economic market and it is assumed that I am included. However, their discussion on women in the economic market does not specify race; instead, women are treated as a homogeneous group. As a black woman I know I do not have the same experience as a white middle-class woman, nor does a middle-class woman have the same experience as a workingclass woman. It is a problem for me when professors group all women in the same category, for as women, we are not solely defined by our sex, but also by our race and class. My experience in the classroom is one of alienation. I find it hard to become empowered and excited when middle-class, educated concerns take precedence over other concerns. I feel the constant weight on my back of the lives of my illiterate 10

Gender, Power and Silence in the Classroom

parents. The women in the class assume I will want to form alliances with them without realizing that their comments about "welfare bums" make me hate them. In a law course, one assignment was to apply a theoretical perspective to a social problem. The topic I chose was the use of law in the oppression of lesbians and gays; I approached it from a structural, critical perspective. The professor said he gave the paper a poor grade because the structural critique was not considered a theoretical perspective, and the lesbian and gay content was "personal and biased" and not from "authoritative" sources. I was present in a class on deviance in which the professor spoke of the major deviants — murderers, rapists and homosexuals —without so much as a breath taken to delineate the three categories. In a course focusing on an analysis of racism and sexism taught by a woman of colour, a few white women in the class complained that we were spending too much time discussing racism and not enough discussing sexism. They failed to see (although it was repeatedly stressed) that we were examining sexism from the point of view of women of colour, for whom an analysis of racism is central.

Whose Experience is Significant? I have found that male professors are often unenthusiastic about discussing the issue of women in the philosophical and political writings of the "great male writers" even when these writers devote a great deal of attention to the nature of women and their role in the state. It is often the professor's opinion that these writers' views on women are less interesting than other lines of inquiry. It was when I dropped out of economics and took up anthropology that I began reading and discussing issues about, and of interest to, me. For the first time I realized that I had been shoved through my years in school without a concept of my own history. In my high-school curriculum women did not exist, blacks played a part only in slavery ... oh, and of course, the equal rights movement. Outside these isolated incidents blacks and women had supposedly played no part in history! This lack of information about me might have been one of the reasons for my lack of interest in my earlier university career. In an economics course, the material was very male-centred. I was constantly asking myself how economics related to me as a non-white woman. Needless to say, that question was never addressed. I was made to feel that I was intruding on a very white, male space. Theoretical assignments are those in which students are expected to research, repeat or memorize the theories of someone else. I find this type of assignment 11

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM alienating because most of the theories I am taught are written by men about men, and if written about women they deprecate them. As female students we are deprived of exposure to theories that speak to our experiences. The education we usually receive reinforces our absence because its content validates only men. For instance, as a psychology student, it was not until this year that I discovered that a pioneer of the therapeutic technique of behaviour modification was Mary Cover Jones — a woman — and not just the men I previously had been led to believe were the founders. What a revelation that was! The male model that views knowledge as "objective" prevents women (and men) from truly learning because it rejects experience as a necessary tool to synthesize theory. I feel that what I have learned is incomplete. My education would have been much richer had I been exposed to the theories, research and life's work of female experts rather than only those of male experts. It is a loss for me that after four years of university I can name, at most, five female experts in my chosen field of study. My ignorance has only served to reinforce the powerlessness that I normally feel in the community outside the classroom.

Who Speaks With Authority? The presence of a woman professor in a male-dominated discipline alters the dynamics within the classroom. Very often the male students do not give female professors the respect and attention they deserve. In a second-year economics course taught by a woman of a racial minority, the male students challenged her authority by constantly interrupting her during the lecture, most of the time to ask trivial questions in order to disrupt the class. I have noticed that there is a sharp contrast in how differently a white male professor's authority is accepted by his students. When a male student in my class answers a question, a dialogue ensues between him and the teaching assistant. When a female student answers a question, the teaching assistant addresses subsequent remarks to the entire class, ignoring the specific source of the answer. This behaviour has caused the women in my class to withdraw their participation. In my first year at York University, I rarely participated in class discussions and I never challenged professors because I feared the consequences. When I listened to the opinions and views expressed by male students, I admired their assertiveness and their ability to organize their thoughts coherently. Further, because the male students were more involved in the classroom discussion than were the women, the discussion tended to revolve around the issues that they found interesting.

12

Gender, Power and Silence in the Classroom

In one of my classes, two students who received "A" grades on their assignments were asked to read their papers to the rest of the class. When the male student had the floor, he received the undivided attention of the class. However, when the female student read her essay, there was a perceptible change in the classroom environment. The noise level rose considerably. She did not get our undivided attention. She received a clear message that very few students were interested in hearing why she had received an "A." To gain control of the class, she turned to the professor for support. None was given. As women in the classroom, we are often left talking to ourselves. Of the courses I have taken at York, women have taught only two. It is not surprising, then, that women have been largely absent from the content of these courses, both as authors of required readings and as subjects of discussion. As an economics major, my classrooms have always been composed predominately of white male students. Their authority within the classroom has an overwhelming presence; their air of confidence seems natural. Most of the professors who teach in this discipline are also white men. Thus, it is not surprising that the female students (including me) are rendered silent in these classroom settings.

Who is Silenced? As a female student, I have suffered from teaching practices and student interactions that have been discriminatory. The primary effect of these practices has been to silence me. Women in my class remained silent for most of the tutorial sessions, afraid of sounding stupid. We have been conditioned to fear our own voices. I previously viewed my silence as a flaw in my character, as my own inability to speak. It has been a liberating experience for me to realize that my lack of classroom participation is due to years of socialization and not to my own inadequacies. I have never really understood my academic self. I have always felt intellectually uncomfortable in discussion periods but reasonably confident when faced with tests and assignments. This process of examining my silence has validated my feelings of discomfort. Teaching practices and student interactions silence women in the classroom. The failure of teachers and students to recognize and put an end to this further legitimizes the silencing of women. Through these practices I have been demoralized, degraded and intimidated. A tutorial assistant, with whom I had taken a course two years earlier, asked what I had been doing lately. I replied that I was still working at the same job and still do13

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

ing undergraduate work at York. Apparently shocked, she said, "Still?" and quickly ended the conversation, uninterested in anything else I was doing. I was dumbfounded that this woman, who had given her students the most rigorous and stimulating tutorials, a woman I had practically worshiped, had just clubbed me emotionally. I realized that she did not respect my struggles as a working-class woman putting herself through university. Each year I have been forced to spend a good part of my energy at waged work and the rest of my energy on three or four courses. It will undoubtedly take six years to receive a four-year degree, but there are few other choices open to me.

Classroom Interactions Interactions in the classroom between professors and students and among students often reinforce sexist, racist, classist and heterosexist beliefs because differences among all the participants in the classroom are not questioned or recognized as pertinent to classroom interaction. In one of my lectures a black male student from Jamaica spoke with a tone, dialect and body language that differed dramatically from that of the Canadian white male professor. When the student asked a question, he was ridiculed because of language. The professor responded to this student by mimicking his mannerisms and speech. "Well Richard my man," he began, and then did not respond to the question. In later classes, he singled out this student as a source of comic relief. As students we felt powerless to challenge him, for if a student of colour challenged the professor, the professor would assume that the student's colour was operating as a bias, and if a white student challenged the professor, the professor might view this as a tactic to undermine his position in front of this large class. The insistence that the classroom is a neutral place hides dynamics that play themselves out in both subtle and unsubtle ways. It does not appear unnatural that male students speak more often and with more authority or that professors give more positive feedback to comments made by men. These dynamics are seen as natural because they reflect what happens outside the classroom. One of my male professors frequently interrupts female students making presentations. He will even take over and give entire sections of the presentation for them. My experience in one of my classes this year has proven to be so frustrating that I dread attending. The professor seems to want to facilitate class participation and discussion. He encourages questions throughout his lecture since the class is small, about twenty-five students. However, whenever I raise my hand to speak, he acknowledges me, and then looks at his watch. This automatically undermines what I have to say. When this first occurred, I thought that he was running out of time and 14

Gender, Power and Silence in the Classroom was anxious to continue the lecture. But when it occurred a second time, I became agitated. I felt as though I had to make my point quickly. I began to notice that I was not the only victim of this type of reaction; other women in the class were treated in a similar manner. However, the men in the class were given ample time to speak and develop their points.

Teaching Practices The teaching practices that I have encountered have limited the classroom in four ways: they have controlled the curriculum itself; they have limited the way in which this material is interpreted by controlling the content of classroom discussion and written submissions; they have controlled who has permission to speak about this material in the classroom; and finally, thev have controlled who gets to be there at all. My gender role at home is reinforced in the classroom. I have learned to be obedient to my professors as I am to my father. Further, I have not learned to question because my assignments have not allowed for any critical examination of the material.

Responding to Challenges about Sexism and Feminism To make men aware of gender bias is to challenge implicitly their self-perception. Men tend to think that this implies merely a change in attitudes. However, it also challenges their privilege and the real power that they have over women. Many men not only resist changing attitudes but they also resist changing roles and giving up their privilege. In one of my classes a professor made a remark about how the development of regulations regarding sexual harassment has created a situation in which unintentional gestures might now be misinterpreted. Further, he said something to the effect that he had better watch what he said "with all the feminists out there." This reinforced his sexism. He trivialized the need for a sexual harassment policy and although he perceived that there were many feminists "out there," he marginalized them as an alternative group whose opinions did not extend beyond their own circle. A male student challenged me about taking a women's studies course. He asked why there were no men's studies courses, to which I replied, "All the courses are men's studies." There appears to be a resentment of women who take charge of their own destiny as well as their own education. I often feel that I am discriminated against because of my choice to pursue women's studies. Derogatory remarks are made about the topic and my participation in it. I have become a tangible target for the free-floating hostility that perpetuates sexism and racism. 15

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Learning Goes Back a Long Way I recall that in grade eight, it was compulsory for girls to study home economics, while boys took industrial arts. I was interested in taking industrial arts, not in cooking and sewing, but when I approached my teacher about it, I was ignored. That year, the boys were allowed to come into our home economics class to taste the food we had prepared, but the girls were prohibited from entering the industrial arts class because of the potential danger of the machinery. Throughout high school, I was always expected to take courses that would make me a better wife. Unlike the boys, I was never expected to take courses that would help me in my working life. I took courses such as home economics or art, while the boys took industrial arts or auto mechanics. Even in my physical education courses, the girls were folk dancing while the boys were training to become more physically fit. I did cross the barrier and take an electronics course, in which I was the only girl. The teacher was amused and did not treat me the same as he treated the boys. I have found that men, more often than women, are able to justify longer hours of solitude for study. A woman's time is not her own. I have seen myself and other female students juggle our many responsibilities, constantly distracted by the demands made on our time. We're the ones who must pick up the kids from daycare or stay up nights with a sick child. Most of the household chores are our responsibility. We have to attend to these things before we can claim some time for ourselves.

Fighting Back Three of the five women in one of my classes support one another in the pursuit of what has come to be called the "woman question." When one of the women makes a point, another backs her up and develops the line of thinking further or repeats it if it has been met with silence. The one male student who was monopolizing the conversation previously has now become very cautious about what he says. This is my first experience of a male student being limited in a traditional classroom environment. Assignments that ask female students to theorize their experiences are empowering because they validate women as they are, not as they are seen by men or in relation to men. Like society, the classroom environment is always gendered, raced and classed. The classroom not only reflects social structures, but actively seeks to socialize people into participating in them in a certain way. In this way, systems of oppression and

16

Gender, Power and Silence in the Classroom privilege exist within the classroom and affect each person's learning, teaching, social interactions and self-concept. We must continue our dialogue around difference and develop a critical consciousness that will problematize gender, race, class and sexual orientation into visibility.

Notes 1. This article includes excerpts from the essays of Howie Chodos, Lynn Daly, Markka Fleming, Gail, Michele Glemaud, Nadia Habib, Tina Horley, F.I., Sabynthe Jones-Caldwell, Catherine Kellogg, Penney Kirby, Maria, Carolyn Morris-Walker, Kathie Moules, A.R., Lori Waserman and Samantha Wehbi. The authors thank Professor Linda Briskin for her ongoing support. Reprinted with permission from the Lexicon, Wimmin's Supplement, Mar. 6,1991, 7-10.

References Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister outsider. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.

17

Fog and Frustration: The Graduate Student Experience Jackie Buxton, with the Teaching Assistants' Resource Group

At York University we have a Teaching Assistants' Resource Group, which works closely with graduate students from the wide range of disciplines and departments within the university. Operating in contradistinction to the assumption that teaching is learned through osmosis, the group provides a mechanism for confidential peer consultation and discussion of pedagogical issues. As well as attending to teaching strategies and techniques, the group offers assistance in understanding individual student differences and promotes sensitivity to human rights and equity issues. While the group provides a forum to foster teaching assistant development, it also offers a forum for the discussion of student learning at all levels, graduate and undergraduate. Reflecting on one's role as an educator necessarily involves reflection on one's experience as a student and our discussions and informal surveys of graduate students suggest that, by and large, students are more dissatisfied than satisfied with their experience in graduate school. Given the diversity of both students and graduate programs at York, there is a multitude of specific differences, but our research indicates that there are a number of common issues and problems arising from the graduate experience that might be relevant to students in other graduate programs. These problems can be grouped under five main headings: the relationship between graduate and undergraduate work, the operation of the graduate classroom, issues of academic research and ownership, professional development and, most importantly, the meaning of a graduate education. The first serious problem reported by graduate students concerns the perceived split between graduate and undergraduate work. Faculty members appear to believe that incoming graduate students somehow received an academic revelation in the summer between the completion of their bachelor's degree and the beginning of their master's studies, during which they read and comprehended the breadth and history of their discipline. Presumably, these same faculty would not assume this knowledge 18

Fog and Frustration of their graduating students; yet somehow this knowledge is assumed to have been acquired in that four-month interval. But ever-increasing pressure for decreased degree completion times does not allow graduate students the extended opportunity to acquire this knowledge. Students admit their complicity in this state of affairs because they do not voice their ignorance in the classroom. This, however, is largely because they do not feel safe to do so. Issues of safety and risk in the graduate classroom are elementary pedagogical problems and must be addressed by faculty members. This leads to the second area of shared concern: the graduate classroom itself. There is an assumption that graduate teaching differs from undergraduate teaching, but there seems to be little self-consciousness or theorization as to why this should be the case: undergraduate classes require thought and effort, graduate classes simply are. Faculty members continue to believe — in the face of all experiential evidence to the contrary — that a large table, some chairs and a few bodies will somehow produce a dazzlingly successful graduate seminar. The ways that graduate seminars are conducted range from the course director as tyrannical expert to the course director who views the seminar as a collegial cooperative experience. Obviously, the ways in which students learn are very diverse and not all teaching methods suit all students. Nevertheless, three salient points emerged from graduate students' comments. First, graduate students do not learn from other students reading conferenceformat papers to the seminar group. Although this is a profitable experience for the paper-giver, it is far less beneficial to the other members of the class. Second, students learn from reading groups, reading courses, discussions with supervisors and course directors, and from preparing conference presentations. They do not learn from class discussions unless the course director has a clear vision of the course, presents a particular stance or argument, and allows students to engage the instructor in that argument. Generally, many graduate faculty fail at this task because they are not skilled at facilitating discussion. Third, students report that the single most productive ingredient in their learning is a faculty member who has the time and goodwill required for an intellectual exchange in the context of an interpersonal relationship. This, of course, is the ideal. Demands on faculty time and lack of credit for reading courses and supervision all point to a decrease in such involvement. That graduate students seek such collegial exchanges, however, suggests that something is not happening in the graduate classroom that should be happening. The nature of the highly individualized and personalized student-supervisor relationship raises other problems that graduate students face. While this can be one of the most productive learning experiences, the relationship can give rise to some of the worst instances of professional misconduct in relation to human rights issues. The power imbalance in this relationship prevents many students from voicing their concerns, specifically with regard to racist and sexist attitudes and behaviour from those with whom they work closely. Fear, again, breeds silence. 19

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM Another ethical problem concerns the interrelationship of academic research and intellectual property. Students report cases of graduate classes that have been used by faculty members to conduct preliminary research. Other students have noted cases in which faculty members have seized research problems and first attempts and then developed and subsequently published them. Perhaps the greatest concern voiced by graduate students centres on the issue of professional development. However optimistic it might seem given today's job climate, graduate students believe that they are preparing for careers, academic or otherwise. In some disciplines students collaborate fully with graduate faculty, developing funding proposals and writing scholarly papers based on research results. In addition, they are groomed for post-doctoral positions and academic jobs and introduced to faculty members at other research institutions and universities who share their interests. This situation, however, represents the exception rather than the rule. Most students must rely on more advanced graduate students for assistance in professional development. As a result, they feel that there is little or no adequate institutional preparation for subsequent job searches and research funding. Instead, the situation seems to be that of an institution intent on pushing graduate students ever more quickly through graduate school and propelling them ill-prepared into the job market. This leads, then, to the final and most important issue: the question of the purpose of graduate course work. Should course work be relevant to the research endeavour of the student? Is it meant to prepare the student with a canon of necessary background material? Is it meant to train the student in modes and methodologies for learning, researching and analyzing? Is it to train students in areas in which they can later teach? Students infer these and other objectives from course work and comprehensive examination requirements, yet many faculty seem not to have reflected on these goals when they designed and executed these courses. As a result, students find that many of their graduate courses have little or no utility and flee to specialized reading courses when given the opportunity. What, then, is graduate course work meant to achieve? The question is really a more specific instance of a much larger question: what does a graduate education mean? Clearly there is no one answer, but this should not prevent the posing of the question and the exploration of its implications. We suggest that faculty members teaching graduate students need to reflect not only on what we are doing, but also on why we are doing it. This article was first published in March 1995 in Core 5 (2): 1—2.

20

"Dissertation Dementia": Reflections on One Woman's Graduate Experience Anonymous

For long periods during the writing of my dissertation, I consoled myself with the comfort that — even if I was making no headway on my thesis — I had produced a definition of dissertation dementia. I imagined that dissertation dementia is that peculiar affliction located at the precise centre of three different sets of contradictions. The malady is created in the mad space between delusions of grandeur and the imposter syndrome, between fear of success and fear of failure, and between fears of abandonment and persecution mania. If this definition of dissertation dementia is humorous, the experience of it is anything but for the person enduring it. Moreover, from a more sociological perspective, the phenomenon reveals a great deal about the systematic organization of graduate teaching and graduate learning. Graduate school is a gate-keeping institution: on one side, students enter as mere students; on the other, we emerge as fully accredited professionals. The organization of the graduate student experience relates as much to this gate-keeping function as to the intellectual requirements of the discipline at hand. It seems to me that the graduate student experience is systematically organized to produce anxiety, insecurity and a particularly unproductive form of competition and hierarchy. Let's start with funding. Under conditions of scarce resources, money is key. I can recall a time when I was a member of my department's Curriculum Committee, which regularly met over the dinner hour. The casual assumption made by faculty members was that ordering in would be the most convenient way to feed ourselves. The food bill broke down at something like ten dollars per person, but that tiny sum represented a considerable percentage of my discretionary income on a teaching assistant's salary. I struggled to balance the expense against the benefits of professional development and networking. In practical terms, I could scarcely afford to be on the committee. But money does not represent only money. The next year I held a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) fellowship, which —in addition to nearly doubling my income -provided an important psychological soother: I was part of that 21

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM small group of "students who were funded." I discovered that students who were funded were a special groups of students: post SSHRC fellowship, mysterious faculty members nodded to me in the halls and I seemed to get more help from the bureaucracy. While assuaging a fear of failure, the approbation began to generate a certain fear of success: funding set me apart from my unfunded friends, who rightfully resented that they were not similarly recognized. This sets up a kind of horizontal hostility among a graduate student cohort, one to which I suspect female graduate students are particularly vulnerable. Think about access to professional venues: publishing and conferences. A professor once recommended that I submit a course paper I had written to a refereed journal on whose editorial board he sat. The paper, in time, was accepted and published. I was tremendously appreciative of the assistance, yet was also vaguely troubled about the fairness of the mythical anonymous "peer review" that had led to my paper's acceptance. Consider also access to teaching positions. In the spring of my first year in the PhD program, a senior graduate student whom I knew slightly called me and told me that he was turning down a teaching appointment at a nearby university. Would I be in interested in replacing him? I spluttered "Yes." He made a series of telephone calls and within thirty minutes I was on the phone to the department's acting head. Her quick call to my supervisor gleaned a positive recommendation and I was hired. This was a clear case of personal contact winning me access to a job that my supervisor's support clinched. Other graduate friends were again rightfully resentful that informal channels distributed perks through friendship and contacts, not through merit or competition — more horizontal hostility. By the time I began producing my dissertation, I was part of an extremely privileged minority of students: I had published, I had presented several papers at conferences, I had held a couple of teaching appointments as a course director and I was "known" since I was one of those "students who was funded." I had assembled what promised to be a highly supportive committee, I had a clear dissertation proposal and a great topic to work on. Despite this excellent beginning, the actual writing process was the hardest thing I have ever done. Someone once told me that writing is dead easy: you simply stare at a piece of paper (or a computer screen) until beads of blood form on your forehead, then you write. But even leaving aside the actual effort of writing, I found that the social relations that surround the writing process were almost unbearable. Students write in isolation: holed up in lonely rooms, struggling to produce a text that works at several levels: it must demonstrate professional competence, it must be "gateable," it ought to demonstrate intellectual brilliance, it must be "good," it must satisfy three (then more) committee members, it must be "acceptable," it must... My strategy for coping with the isolation was to send regular notes to my committee members, reminding them that I was alive, reassuring them (and me) of my schedule and forwarding whatever other bits of news I felt relevant, in addition to 22

"Dissertation Dementia" circulating chapters as they were born. I later discovered that these packages were received as a barrage, overwhelming to my overworked committee members. Of course, I had picked supportive, young, progressive faculty who were being overused by other graduate students. They did not have the time to respond to my needs during the writing process. While they acknowledged receipt of my packages along the way, occasionally phoned me or wrote notes on the drafts and pointed out areas of concern, they basically encouraged me to keep going. During the writing process, I was awarded a post-doctoral fellowship. By late August, I had "kept going" and had produced a complete draft. I was down to the wire in terms of taking up the post doc and so wrote yet another letter to the committee about what I needed from them. In the first committee meeting in over eight months, they presented a united front as they told me that my dissertation was not ready to defend and that I would not be able to take up the post doc. I was totally unprepared for this development since I felt that none of them had warned me that their concerns about the draft were as serious as they now seemed to be. In September, my frantic efforts to persuade the committee that the work was actually close to completion failed and I had to write to SSHRC to turn down the $54,000. I nearly quit the program. In retrospect, I overreacted: it had been unreasonable of me to think that my first draft could be my last draft. But I felt like road kill on the academic highway. Despite all the approval I had garnered — funding, publication, teaching — I felt like a failure. My committee was unhappy with me (for being demanding of them) and unhappy with my work -a synergistic combination not easily resolved. I felt furious and frightened that I had not been warned that I might not finish in time. I felt shame that I had failed. I feared that all the little things that had smoothed my way so far had just been abruptly pulled out from under me. The working relationship between me and my committee soured through this process. I took several months off to repair my ego and adjust to the loss of the postdoc fellowship. I had virtually no communication with my supervisor or other members of my committee, which meant that I was very frightened of them when I started working again. E.P. Thompson once wrote that one of the last remaining feudal relationships in the modern world is that between the graduate student and supervisor, and when my relationship with my supervisor took a painful turn, I viscerally felt the truth of this observation. The complicated relationship between me and my supervisor was hard on many levels: I needed her intellectually, professionally and personally. Yet —through my not finishing - she withdrew her intellectual support since I had not demonstrated the competence I seemed to promise. Her professional support also lessened as I no longer seemed as bright or as collegial. Finally, she was unable and unwilling to offer the kind of personal support for which I hungered. In many ways, her response was reasonable. My needs were not really her problem, but were produced through larger administrative relations of ruling and institutional organization.

23

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

This is part of how dissertation dementia is organized. The very acts of graduate student confidence and hubris that had earlier been taken as clues that I was "hot" now appeared no more than delusions of grandeur. Where I had earlier seemed to promise success, I now seemed perilously close to failure. And I could not decide if I was getting any, not enough, or too much support from my committee: hence, my simultaneous fear of persecution and fear of abandonment. In all of this mess, female students face particular challenges. Our work is often political and feminist, which makes us vulnerable when assessed against disciplinary conventions. This results in feminists flocking to the few faculty who support feminist research, overburdening already overworked faculty members. Women are often less skilled than men at negotiating the complicated issues of mentorship and competition. And, it is no surprise that in the uneven contest of egos and pocketbooks, women take longer to complete programs and drop out more frequently. I have recounted dissertation dementia through my personal story, but I do not think that my experience is particularly unique — except to the degree that mine is probably among the least painful stories graduate students can tell. I think that the social relations of graduate school are systematically organized in ways that promote competition, hierarchy and alienation. While individual students and individual faculty members can and do strategize and negotiate the structural constraints that set the parameters to their work, the stark reality of the institution is that the gates are mainly to keep people out. The author is now safely employed in a tenure-track job at a Canadian university.

24

Part Two: Teachers' Voices

Power in the Classroom1 Linda Briskin

"I have a problem with the notion that there is huge power imbalance in the classroom," he [Michael Bliss, a University of Toronto history professor] said. "It's not the reality. Professors are not doing their duty if they give bad grades (to an outspoken student) and students are not contributing if they don't speak up, if they hide behind what they think is a power situation." Mr. Robinson, on the same panel, disagreed. "That's a surreal view of the classroom," he said. "The reality is that there is a significant power imbalance. The professor has tremendous power." But others argued that, if there is any power imbalance in this age of political correctness, then it's on the side of the student. "When a student gets mad at a professor," continued Dr. Bliss, "it's amazing what they can do." This interchange, reported in University Affairs in 1994, suggests a growing awareness of the relevance of a discourse on power to an understanding of the university classroom; at the same time, the comments reflect a limited understanding of the complexity and significance of the power relations operating in that classroom. The following discussion takes up that complexity, examining the multiple practices that organize classroom power. The analysis challenges conventional approaches to classroom power in a number of ways. It recognizes both teacher and student power, distinguishing between power and formal authority; it rejects the binary paradigm of authoritarian classrooms dominated by teacher power and democratic classrooms based on sharing power; it disputes the possibility of classrooms as safe havens away from racism, sexism and homophobia and the view that sensitive teaching can make the problem of power evaporate; and it assumes that classroom power dynamics shape what is learned and thus cannot be avoided.

Understanding Power in the Classroom When four female students gave a presentation on the topic of the police and domestic violence, a male student challenged one of the speakers. He accused her of 25

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

being a man-hater and of trying to crucify all police officers. She defended herself by saying that she was only trying to point out that often the police don't arrest batterers when they should. The debate turned into an argument. At one point the male student said, "I'm impressed by your enthusiasm but arguments are based on facts." Finally, the male professor intervened with the "facts," facts which clearly supported the female speaker's argument. His intervention implied that his input was necessary to solidify her argument. The male student was not reprimanded for trying to humiliate and discredit the speaker by portraying her as an emotional, irrational woman.2 Dynamics of power shape, constrain, interrupt and facilitate both learning and teaching. They shape students' sense of entitlement to learning and to voice; they have an impact on teacher credibility and authority. Power is mediated, organized and expressed by and through "difference" —gender, race, class, able-bodiedness, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age — which affects the way students learn, the way teachers teach and interact with students, and the way students interact with each other and with teachers. As currently constituted, these power dynamics often produce exclusion, marginalization, disempowerment and silencing. They are always operating in the classroom environment and they not only impede learning, they are the site of some of the most important and deeply remembered learning. However, they have become so much a part of the common-sense practices of schooling, naturalized and thus seemingly not subject to intervention, that we don't even notice them (Ng 1991). These power dynamics are part of a systemic and structural reality; they are not attitudinal, accidental or based on ignorance. To say that sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism or ageism are systemic is to say that they are embedded in the practices of institutions: policies, pedagogies, structures of knowledge and patterns of classroom interaction. As a result, teaching tolerance of "difference" is not enough. The implication of teaching tolerance is that difference will be overlooked, but such disregard makes discrimination based on and organized around difference invisible, and further, it makes the fact that difference itself, for example the meaning of gender, is constituted by and through power invisible as well. Furthermore, the multiple dimensions of power in the classroom that operate on complex and interwoven lines of sexual orientation, age, ability, ethnicity and class, as well as race and gender, make the language of sexism and racism obfuscating.3 It compartmentalizes oppressions, discursively suggesting that the experiences of sexism and racism are discrete, thus making it more difficult to see the ways in which these forms of oppression work with and against one another in producing both privilege and exclusion. I prefer to focus, at least as a starting point, on the question of power itself. In her discussion of black women's experience, Patricia Collins (1990) argues for a move from additive, separate systems approaches to oppression and toward.. .the more fundamental issue of social relations of domination. Race, class, and gender consti26

Power in the Classroom tute axes of oppression that characterize Black women's experience within a more generalized matrix of domination. Other groups may encounter different dimensions of the matrix, such as sexual orientation, religion, and age, but the overarching relationship is one of domination (226). She goes on to point out that "all groups possess varying amounts of penalty and privilege in one historically created system. In this system, for example, white women are penalized by their gender but privileged by their race" (225). I would go further than Collins; in her formulation, race and gender still remain somewhat distinct from one another. I suggest that we have to move towards an understanding of the ways in which gender is always raced, and race always gendered, class always gendered, etc. To say that class is gendered means that, for example, men and women of the working class do not experience "class" in the same way. Women do not tend to do the same waged work as men, they tend to have a different relationship to unions, women are generally responsible for household labour in addition to waged work, women face violence in both the workplace and the family —all of these factors mean that working-class women experience their class position differently than do working class men. Simultaneously, gender is classed because women of different classes experience their gender in particular ways. For example, a woman who has the resources to hire someone to care for her children would experience the difficulties of household work differently than would a working-class woman who is herself responsible for child care. Not only does the recognition of the complex interrelation of "oppressions" challenge any hierarchy of oppression (Briskin 1990—94), it also makes clear that there is no abstract, ahistorical meaning to gender, class or race. At the same time, focusing on power must not make invisible the historically specific ways in which gender, race, class or other oppressions operate. For example, Collins (1990) makes the point that gender oppression seems better able to annex the basic power of the erotic and intrude in personal relationships via family dynamics and within individual consciousness. This may be because racial oppression has fostered historically concrete communities... [which] have stimulated cultures of resistance (226). Concomitant with understanding the construction of gender, race, class, etc. as intertwining realities, recognizing that the subjective experience of "identities" is not static but relational and contextual, is critical to classroom practice.4 Subjectivity is historically situated since the meanings of gender, race or class are always a site of struggle and are not based on conceptual abstractions. Subjectivity is relational because it is shaped and made meaningful in relation to other people. We don't each have an identity, or even multiple identities that we bring into the classroom; rather, we are constantly negotiating our subjectivities and producing ourselves in the classroom. Subjectivity is experienced, not owned. It is contextual since what is significant about each of us shifts depending on the situation and who is present and

27

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

absent. The classroom, then, is constitutive of subjectivity, not just a site for its expression. By the end of semester, many of us began to understand ourselves as inhabiting intersections of multiple, contradictory, overlapping social positions not reducible either to race, or class, or gender, and so on. Depending upon the moment and the context, the degree to which any of us "differs" from the mythical norm varies along multiple axes (Ellsworth 1992, 16-17). From such a perspective, student and teacher resistance to rigid labels, to being designated "the lesbian," "the woman of colour" or "the feminist" and being encouraged (or forced) to speak from such confining positions can be better understood.5 Mimi Orner (1992) concludes that: Instead of framing the slipperiness of identity as a problem to be solved or an obstacle to be avoided, feminist posts true turalists regard the inability to fix our identities and to be known through them in any definitive way as a powerful means to "denaturalize" ourselves and embrace change (74).

Teacher Power, Student Power Discussions of classroom power tend to focus on teachers who discriminate against students based on their race, class, sexual orientation, ability, age, ethnicity or gender. Research on gender and sexual harassment, on racial harassment and increasingly on heterosexism and homophobia has revealed the practices of teacher power. How Schools Shortchange Girls^ the report of the American Association of University Women and the Wellesley College Centre for Research on Women (1992), is worth quoting at some length on the issue of racial dynamics in the classroom. Black boys tend to be perceived less favourably by their teachers and seem less able than other students.. .Black girls have less interaction with teachers than white girls, but they attempt to initiate interaction much more often than white girls or than boys of either race. Research indicates teachers may unconsciously rebuff these black girls who eventually turn to peers for interaction, often becoming the class enforcer or go-between for other students. Black females also receive less reinforcement from teachers than do other students, although their academic performance is often better than boys'. In fact, when black girls do as well as white boys in school, teachers attribute their success to hard work but assume that the white boys are not working up to their full potential. This, coupled with the evidence that blacks are more often reinforced for their social behaviour while whites are likely to be reinforced for their academic accomplishments, may contribute to low academic self-esteem among black girls. Researchers have found that black females value their academic achievements less than black males in spite of their better performance (70-71).

28

Power in the Classroom Table 1*: Gender Discrimination in the Classroom DISCRIMINATION IN TEACHER CONTACT/ COMMENT AT THE SECONDARY AND COLLEGE LEVELS ignoring female students even when they clearly volunteer to participate calling directly on male students but not on women calling male students more often by name coaching men but not women in working towards a fuller answer waiting longer for men to answer questions interrupting female students asking female students questions that require factual answers while asking men questions that demand critical thinking responding more extensively to men's comments crediting men's comments but not giving authorship to women's comments making seemingly helpful comments that imply that women are not as competent as men NON-VERBAL CUES making eye contact more often with men than with women nodding and gesturing more often in response to men's questions and comments assuming a tone of interest with men but an impatient or patronizing tone with women assuming a posture of attentiveness with men but the opposite with women GENDER HARASSMENT Comments that disparage - women in general, reinforcing stereotyped views of women's traits - women's intellectual ability - women's academic commitment Comments that divert discussion of a female student's work to a discussion of her physical attributes or appearance Comments that refer to males as "men" but to females as "girls" or "gals" - using the generic "he" to refer to both women and men Comments that rely on sexist humour as a classroom device Comments that disparage scholarship about women Comments that address the class as if no women were present, such as "Suppose your wife..." *Dr*wn from Hall with Sandier (1982). 29

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM The literature on teacher power often makes the incorrect assumption that teachers are white males and that only teachers have power in the classroom. Here a more multilayered analysis is needed. By focusing only on teachers, power and formal authority are conflated and the complexities and complications of the operation of power in the classroom are made less visible. Power is a dynamic relationship; it is conditional, not absolute; it is situational, negotiated continually in interactional and local settings. Power cannot be given away or shared, so to speak, nor is there a fixed or static sum of power in any given context. "Power" is not seen simply as a fixed property of social structures and social institutions.. .Rather, it is treated as a dynamic relation which is negotiated continuously in interactional settings.. .Authority, on the other hand, is formal power granted to individuals through institutional structures and relations.. .Teachers have authority over students as a consequence of their ascribed role in the educational system. But in an interactional setting, this authority can be challenged by those without formal power (Ng 1991, 100-1). Distinguishing power from the authority that is granted to teachers by virtue of their positions in institutional structures problematizes the complex and contradictory relationship between power and authority, revealing the ways in which authority is mediated by power and making visible the possibility that teachers and students both have power.6 Two power axes, both of which involve student power, then, necessarily complicate an understanding of teacher authority and power (Briskin and Coulter 1992). Students are always gendered, raced, classed, sexed and embodied subjects and thus bring differential privilege to the classroom, which is reinscribed in their interactions with each other.7 Although such interactions, under the best of circumstances, can involve affirmation, just as frequently they involve competition, denial of the knowledge of the other and many techniques of silencing. One particularly disturbing effect of these power dynamics is the internalized self-devaluation and disavowal of their knowledge by many female students. This is expressed in the practice of prefacing their interventions with apologies or self-deprecating statements. Power dynamics among students shape the learning of students, their participation, their risk taking and their sense of entitlement in the classroom. I always felt that I didn't belong in maths and science. Sometimes the boys would make jokes about girls doing science experiments. They always thought they were going to do it better and it made me really nervous. Sometimes I didn't even try to do an experiment because I knew they would laugh if I got it wrong. Now I just deaden myself against it, so I don't hear it any more. But I feel really alienated. My experience now is one of total silence. Sometimes I even wish I didn't know what I know (a Queen's University student quoted in Lewis 1992, 173). Although student access to classroom power depends on race, class, gender, sexual orientation and ability, the meanings of these identities are continually being negotiated, are relational rather than static and will vary depending on the context. So, 30

Power in the Classroom for example, the significance of gender to classroom-power dynamics is different in a mainstream course than in a women's studies course. Furthermore, Linda Eyre (1991) emphasizes that it is important to pay attention to "diversity of experience within sex groups"; so, for example, she notes in her study of coeducational home economics classes that "quiet boys, like girls, were humiliated and controlled by dominant boys" (213).8 Student exercise of power has an impact on the credibility and authority of teachers, affecting all women teachers and especially minority women and lesbians (Hoodfar 1992, Khayatt 1992, Ng 1991 and Ng 1993). Very often male students do not give female professors the respect and attention they deserve. In a second-year economics course taught by a female professor of a racial minority, the male students challenged her authority by constantly interrupting her during the lecture, most of the time to ask trivial questions in order to disrupt the class. I have noticed a sharp contrast in how differently the authority of a white male professor is accepted by his students. Such biases also surface in student ratings of professors. For example, in a summary of research, Susan Basow (1994) points out that "most studies ignore the gender of the students in doing evaluations, the disciplines involved, and the fact that female professors are often judged on a double standard." When these factors are taken into account, evidence indicates that "female professors frequently receive lower ratings from their male students and higher ratings from their female students... [and] appear to be evaluated according to a heavier set of expectations than are male professors" (9). Basow reports on another study that shows that "in order to receive comparable ratings, female professors need to do more than their male counterparts" (10). This kind of data suggests that women and minority teachers function in a complex contradiction: they are both marginalized and privileged.9

Practices of Power Complex common-sense practices, moments and sites of power inform the classroom in multiple ways: in patterns of authority and resistance, in struggles about expertise and experience, in controlling access to knowledge, in ways of assessing student knowledge, in the structure and organization of the classroom, in conversation patterns, in dynamics of validation and invalidation, in practices of self-disclosure, in body and voice language, in informal networks, and in personal comments (see Table 2).

Alliances and Bonding Patterns of alliances and bonding are one concrete expression of these power dynamics. Bonding among male students (based on their power and to ensure its continuation) takes many forms; for example, male students are more likely to pay attention to and pick up on each others' comments, but overlook those made by women (Hall with Sandier 1982, 9). Female students seek alliances with male students in order to share in their power. This can take the form of attempting to distance 31

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM Table 2: Practices of Power in the Classroom

AUTHORITY authority based on experience:, whose experience is validated; what kinds of experiences are validated authority based on expertise, whose expertise is validated; the privileging of experience over expertise or expertise over experience RESISTANCE resistance to the authority of experience or expertise: anti-feminism as a form of resistance resistance to orthodoxies resistance to power resistance to identity politics CONTROLLING ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE through the use of exclusive or inaccessible theoretical language by discouraging questions ASSESSING STUDENT KNOWLEDGE types of assignments grading practices CONTROLLING STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF CLASSROOM lectures group work: obligatory; participation patterns discussion structures: participation patterns CONVERSATION PATTERNS interruptions who listens; who is listened to - by whom who speaks; how they speak; how loud they speak who speaks for whom who asks questions; who asks questions to whom who answers questions; whose questions are answered who is silent; who is silenced whose knowledge is validated VALIDATION/INVALIDATION PATTERNS patterns of bonding and alliances patterns of censorship: moralism, political correctness, pigeonholing (insisting on "in character") arriving late; leaving early naming: knowing students' names; calling teacher by honorific (professor) or by name self-invalidation: apologizing 32

Power in the Classroom

SELF-DISCLOSURE who shares whose sharing is blocked or forced what kind of sharing is encouraged or discouraged the pressure to self-disclose confidentiality "PERSONAL" COMMENTS harassment the "special" relationships (teacher's favourite, etc.) under- or over-attention commenting on physical appearance of teachers or students BODY/VOICE LANGUAGE eye contact tone of voice attentiveness body language PHYSICAL SPACE the claiming of physical space the physical organization of the room; size of the room who sits where and with whom COMPOSITION OF THE CLASS based on gender, race, class, age, sexual orientation, ability, etc. teacher—student ratio IN LARGE LECTURE HALLS attentiveness quiet OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM who socializes together at class breaks who shares information and cooperates and with whom who uses the teacher's office hours

33

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

themselves from other female students. Evelyn Fox Keller, famous for her work on women and science, wrote "I am even more ashamed to admit that out of my desire to be taken seriously as a physicist I was eager to avoid identification with other women students who I felt could not be taken seriously" (4). Complex but understandable motivations underscore the practice of women seeking alliances with male students. Magda Lewis (1992) describes some of these dynamics in her discussion of "caretaking." In a debate about peace education in Lewis's university classroom that drew connections among patriarchy, violence and political economy, one of the female students said, "As you were speaking I was wondering and worrying about how the men in the room were feeling. What you said made sense to me, but I felt uncomfortable about how men took it" (174). Lewis comments: Such a protective posture on the part of women on behalf of men is a common drama played out in many classrooms.. .That such a dynamic should develop among the students was not a surprise. I know that, within the terms of patriarchy, women have had no choice but to care about the feelings of men. Women know that, historically, not caring has cost us our lives: intellectually, emotionally, socially, psychologically and physically.. .It became clear that as a collective social practice, for men, attentiveness to other than one's self is largely a matter of choice, whereas for women, it has been a socially and historically mandated condition of our acceptability as women (174-76). Janice Newton, a political science professor at York University, describes a graphic situation that occurred during a film showing in a first-year political science course, which also suggests a potent pattern of accommodation on the part of female students: The film No Way Not Me explores the problem of female poverty in Canada from a liberal perspective: women make the wrong choices - they choose the wrong education; they don't plan for their careers; they have babies too soon, etc. The film does not in any way blame men for women's poverty. Within the first ten minutes of the film, I had to stop it several times to bring order to the class since the men sitting in the back rows were incredibly disruptive. When the film was over, I asked the class for their reactions to it. The men in the back rows spoke in quick succession about how they hated the film; how it attacked men; how poverty was really women's fault, and that women should stop blaming men. A number of male students talked about how women were to blame for getting pregnant because they dressed "sexy;" they were teases; they came on to men. After a number of men spoke (no women students volunteered to speak, and no men broke ranks to challenge these views), I intervened. I observed that only the men had spoken, and now it was time to hear from the women students. There was an uncomfortable silence; then the first woman spoke. She said she fully agreed 34

Power in the Classroom with the men, that if a woman had children it was her own fault and she should be forced to pay for them and raise them. It was not just what she said, but how she said it that struck me. Her body language spoke volumes. She was sitting in the centre, just in front of the row of men. Before she spoke, she turned to look at them (seeking approval?), rather flirtatiously flipped her hair and adjusted herself in her seat. The overwhelming impression I had was that she was desperately seeking the approval of the men in the class. I asked the class to cite evidence from the film where men were "blamed" for women's poverty — it drew blank stares and no one could come up with a concrete example. Finally, to my great relief, one brave woman disagreed. She challenged the idea that women were to "blame" for pregnancy and raised the point the film had made — about divorce and its impact on women's finances. Again, I was struck by her body language. She started out very tentative, and close to her seat, but when some of the male students from the back row challenged her, she turned and responded to them. The male students said a number of very offensive things about women. They did not demonstrate any concern over whether they might offend their female audience (including the female professor), whereas the women who spoke all overtly demonstrated concern for keeping the approval of their male audience.10 Perhaps most disturbing is the complex bonding between students and teachers that reproduces discriminatory power dynamics. This takes the form not only of the expected bonding between male students and male teachers on the basis of their shared power, but also bonding between female teachers and male students, sometimes against female students. I remember the last time I ever spoke in that women's studies class. A response, by a male student, was so degrading that I asked him to shut his mouth. I expected the teacher to support me because this had been going on all year. The teacher did intervene. However, her comment was directed at my behaviour. She said, "I will not tolerate that type of behaviour in my class." I was silenced for the rest of the year. The male student proved that in the end he was still the more powerful. Although little background about what actually happened in the above example is available, it seems that the female teacher did not attempt to mediate the dispute and that the female student felt abandoned by her. Such actions by female teachers may reflect an implicit, if not explicit, recognition of the devaluation of women teachers and the difficulties they experience in exerting their expertise and authority. Bonding with male students might be a way to deepen their own classroom power. This suggests that female students have no "natural" ally in the classroom.11 Although beyond the scope of this discussion, it is worth noting that women's organizing in side classrooms could offer an alternative. Collective bonding by women can interrupt the practices of power: 35

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Three of the five women in one of my classes support one another in the pursuit of what has come to be called "the woman question." When one of the women makes a point, another backs her up and develops this line of thinking further or repeats it if it has been met with silence. The one male student who was monopolizing the conversation previously has now become very cautious about what he says. This is my first experience of a male student being limited in a traditional classroom environment.

Conclusion: Problematizing Safety The recognition of power dynamics challenges the common-sense notion of the classroom as a learning space, apart and safe from the outside.12 Teachers have tended to have a distorted sense of what constitutes classroom safety and the limits of classroom safety, and of who feels safe in the classroom -perhaps projecting their own feelings of comfort. 13Roxana Ng (1993) points out that "To speak of safety and comfort is to speak from a position of privilege, relative though that may be. For those who have existed too long on the margins, life has never been safe or comfortable" (210).14 In discussing the lack of safety people of colour feel in antiracist workshops, Sarita Srivastava (1994) comments: The facilitator said only, "Safety is an on-going process, we all have to contribute to making everyone feel safe." These kinds of statements don't acknowledge that people of colour cannot be "safe" in such a context. They do not acknowledge that white people in this situation are generally safer, and that these different levels of danger are based on the power relations of racism. These statements also create an impression that the feelings of unsafeness are not systemic problems but rather individual problems that can be overcome (106). Elizabeth Ellsworth (1992) speaks of classroom safety as a "repressive fiction [that has] the power to divert our attention and classroom practices away from what we needed to be doing.. .Acting as if our classroom were a safe space in which democratic dialogue was possible and happening did not make it so...We needed classroom practices that confronted the power dynamics inside and outside of our classroom that made democratic dialogue impossible" (107). Once the "repressive fiction" of safety is dismantled and the limits of safety problematized, space is opened in which to develop techniques for creating safer, if not safe, classrooms. Amanda Konradi (1993) takes up the challenge of creating safer spaces in which to teach about sexual assault: "I believe that one creates safer spaces and/or builds trust by making parameters of participation explicit, removing or diminishing surprises, specifying power relations, working to level hierarchies, and distributing responsibility among everyone present" (17). Using concepts of power to deconstruct the everyday experience in the classroom reveals the classroom as a place of contradiction and difficult negotiation, where much is unsaid and power permeates all interactions. This deconstruction, however, leaves me quite optimistic. Creating a 36

Power in the Classroom mote politicized and less idealized basis for envisioning the alternative classroom allows for an understanding of both the limits and the possibilities.15

Notes 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations in this article are taken from the article by Fleming et al in this section. 2. This article is part of a larger piece entitled "Negotiating Power and Silence in the Class: A Strategic Approach." I would like to acknowledge the way that this perspective has been clarified and deepened for me through interactions with the participants and audiences of workshops and lectures I have given at Dalhousie University, McMaster University, York University, and the Toronto Board of Education, at the Women's Fora of Goteborg, Linkoping and Uppsala universities, and at Kvinnofolkhogskolan in Sweden. The debt to the many engaged students I have had the opportunity to work with, especially in my fourth-year seminar on feminist thought, is acknowledged. I would also like to thank Rebecca Coulter, Harriet Friedmann, Nadia Habib, Didi Khayatt, Roxana Ng and Daphne Read for critical and instructive feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. 3. In an earlier discussion of classroom strategies, I counterposed non-sexism and non-racism with the more politically progressive "antisexism" and "antiracism" to emphasize the need for active interventionist strategies (Briskin 1990-94). However, I now find this language not complex enough to deal with the multiple and interwoven dimensions of power. 4. Bannerji (1991) calls for a focus on subjectivity rather than identity: "The social analysis we need, therefore, must begin from subjectivity, which asserts dynamic, contradictory and unresolved dimensions of experience and consequently does not reify itself into a fixed psychological category called identity which rigidifies an individual's relationship with her social environment and history" (98-99). 5. Denise Riley (1998) deconstructs the "crystallisations of'women' as a category" to show that "women" is "historically, discursively constructed, and always [relative] to other categories which themselves change..." (1-2). On this basis, she provocatively asks, "Can anyone fully inhabit a gender without a degree of horror? How could someone 'be a woman' through and through [and] make a final home in that classification without suffering claustrophobia?" (6). Further, "if indeed the label 'woman* is inadequate, that it is neither possible nor desirable to live solidly inside any sexed designation, then isn't that its own commentary on the unwillingness of many to call themselves feminists" (112). 6. This analysis is influenced by Foucauldian notions of power, in particular, Foucault's challenge to notions of monarchical power: "[P]ower must be understood.. .as the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organization; as the process which, through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms, strengthens, or reverses them...Power's condition of possibility.. .must not be sought in the primary existence of a central point...; it is the moving substrate of force relations which, by virtue of their inequality, constantly engender states of power, but the latter are always local and unstable. The omnipresence of power: not because it has the privilege of consolidating everything under its invincible unity, but because it is produced from one moment to the next.. .Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere... [P]ower is not an

37

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM institution, and not a structure...it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society...Power is not something that is acquired, seized or shared...; power is exercised from innumerable points, in the interplay of nonegalitarian and mobile relations... [RJelations of power are not in superstructural positions, with merely a role of prohibition or accompaniment; they have a directly productive role... Power comes from below; that is, no binary and all-encompassing opposition between rulers and ruled" (Foucault 1978, 92—94). Although I find Foucault's formulations of power very relevant, I am concerned to embody this circulation of power; that is, to recognize, without reifying, the significance of structures of gender, race, class, able bodiedness, sexual orientation, etc. 7. So, for example, everyday inequities in talk patterns are carried into the classroom. Research shows that "men talk more than women, men talk for longer periods and take more turns at speaking, men exert more control over the topic of conversation, men interrupt women much more frequently than women interrupt men, men's interruptions of women more often introduce trivial or inappropriately personal comments that bring the woman's discussion to an end or change its focus" (Hall with Sandier 1992, 8). All these patterns are reinforced in the classroom. 8. Anne-Mette Kruse (1992) found a similar pattern in her study of coeducational and single-sex classroom settings. 9. An interesting parallel can be made to a discussion by Maria Mies (1983) of the contradictory position of women academics: "As women, they are affected by sexist oppression together with other women, and as scholars they share the privileges of the (male) academic elite" (120). She draws an intriguing conclusion: "The contradictory existential and ideological condition of women scholars must become the starting point for a new methodological approach." I might argue that the contradictory experience of women and minority teachers can be the starting point for re-visioning classroom practices of power. 10. I would like to thank Janice Newton for sharing this incident with me. 11. bell hooks (1998) points out the particular difficulties for black women who, because of the combined forces of sexism and racism, cannot count on the support of black men or white women: "The combined forces of racism and sexism often make the black female graduate experience differ in kind from that of the black male experience. While he may be subjected to racial biases, his maleness may serve to mediate the extent to which he will be attacked..." (60). 12. It might be that, even if achievable, the goal of classroom safety is problematic. Given the lack of safety in the world outside the classroom, it might be that providing safe havens will not equip students to deal with what they will confront. In their critique of the call for "connected education," which came out of the work of Belenky etal. in Women's Ways of'Knowing, Victoria Steinitz and Sandra Kanter (1991), concerned about the needs of working-class and poor women, suggest that "Widespread adoption of connected education as an ideal model for women might well produce yet another generation of women who are ill equipped to advocate for themselves in the competitive, conflict-laden society where, unfortunately, we continue to live" (139). 13. Problematizing safety necessitates rethinking the thematic of safety in the discourses of feminist pedagogy. See Briskin and Coulter (1992) and Briskin (1990-94). 14. This resonates with the central insight of Elizabeth Stanko's (1985) work on violence, in which she argues that much of what society deems as "normal" behaviour on the part of men women experience as threatening. 15. For an exploration of a pragmatic application of this perspective, see "Negotiating power in the classroom: The example of group work" in Section V, Part 2.

38

Power in the Classroom

References American Association of University Women and the Wellesley College Centre for Research on Women. 1992. How schools shortchange girls. Bannerji, Himani. 1991. But who speaks for us? In Unsettling relations, Toronto: Women's Press. Basow, Susan. 1994. Student ratings of professors are not gender blind. Women and CAUT News 8: 9—11. Briskin, Linda. 1990. Identity politics and the hierarchy of oppression: A comment. Feminist Review35: 102—8. . 1990-94. Feminist pedagogy: Teaching and learning liberation. Ottawa: Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. and Rebecca Coulter. 1992. Feminist pedagogy: Challenging the normative. Canadian Journal of Education 1 (3): 247-63. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black feminist thought. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Ellsworth, Elizabeth. 1992. Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In Feminisms and critical pedagogy. Carmen Luke and Jennifer Gore (eds.), 90—119. New York: Routledge. Eyre, Linda. 1991. Gender relations in the classroom: A fresh look at coeducation. In Women and education, 2nd ed., Jane Gaskell and Arlene McLaren (eds.), 193-219. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises. Foucault, Michel. 1978. The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York: Vintage. Hall, Roberta with Bernice Sandier. 1982. The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Washington, dc: Association of American Colleges. Hoodfar, Homa. 1992. Feminist anthropology and critical pedagogy: The anthropology of classrooms' excluded voices. Canadian Journal of Education 17 (3): 303-20. hooks, bell. 1988. Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Toronto: Between the Lines. Khayatt, Madiha Didi. 1992. Lesbian teachers: An invisiblepresence. Albany: State University of New York Press. Konradi, Amanda. 1993. Teaching about sexual assault: Problematic silences and solutions. Teaching Sociology-21: 13-25. Kruse, Anne-Mette. 1992.".. .We have learnt not to just sit back, twiddle our thumbs and let them take over": Single sex settings and the development of a pedagogy for girls and a pedagogy for boys in Danish schools. Gender and Education 4 (1-2): 81-103. Lewis, Magda. 1992. Interrupting patriarchy: Politics, resistance and transformation in the feminist classroom. In Feminisms and criticalpedagogy, Carmen Luke and Jennifer Gore (eds.) 167-91. New York: Routledge. Mies, Maria. 1983. Towards a methodology for feminist research. In Theories of women's studies, Gloria Bowles and Renate Klein (eds.), 117-39. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Moses, Yolanda. 1989. Black women in academe: Issues and strategies. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges. Ng, Roxana. 1991. Teaching against the grain: Contradictions for minority teachers. In Women and education, 2nd ed., Jane Gaskell and Arlene McLaren (eds.), 99—115. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises. . 1993. "A woman out of control": Deconstructing sexism and racism in the university. Canadian Journal of Education 18 (3): 189-205. Orner,Mimi. 1992. Interrupting the calls for student voice in "liberatory" education: A feminist poststructuralist perspective. In Feminisms and critical pedagogy, Carmen Luke and Jennifer Gore (eds.), 74-89. New York: Routledge. Riley, Denise. 1988. "Am I that nameP": Feminism and the category of "women"in history. University of Minnesota. Srivastava, Sarita. 1994. Voyeurism and vulnerability: Critiquing the power relations of anti-racist workshops. Canadian Woman Studies 14: 105-9. Stanko, Elizabeth. 1985. Ordinary experiences. In Intimate intrusions: Women's experience of male violence, 7-19. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Steinitz, Victoria and Sandra Kanter. 1991. Becoming outspoken: Beyond connected education. Women's Studies Quarterly1-2: 138-53. University Affairs 199 4: 7'.

39

The University Classroom: From Laboratory to Liberatory Education TeferiAdem

The Ontario Human Rights Code recognizes the "dignity and worth of every person" and provides for "equal rights and opportunities without discrimination." This legislation applies to all teachers, students and staff at any university in Ontario. Anyone who feels that they have been targeted or disadvantaged because of race or ethnic affiliation has the right to seek recourse under the law. York University's Centre for Race and Ethnic Relations interprets this legislation as the sine qua non and an essential pillar of the academic and scholarly freedom to discuss, explore, criticize and create our collective understandings of who we are. Author bell hooks reminds us that it is difficult, if not impossible, to be disinterested in the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge. She warns against the "erasure of the body" that "encourages us to think that we are listening to neutral objective facts, facts that are not particular to who is sharing the information" (1994, 139). And she encourages teaching that relates to the life experience and history of our students. I have found the writings of bell hooks particularly timely and valuable in my role as an advisor at the Centre for Race and Ethnic Relations. My ongoing task is to help ensure that no member of the university community is subjected to abuse, harassment, humiliation or degradation on the basis of race or ethnicity. That assignment might sound fairly straightforward, particularly since both the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario have enacted clearly defined legislation to counter these violations of human rights. Moreover, the university for which I work is striving to promote diversity, an inclusive curriculum and a harassment-free classroom environment. And yet many university classrooms remain a "chilly" place for many students and teachers precisely because universities and teachers exaggerate their ability to provide education that is objective and neutral. Academic institutions define themselves as laboratories for open and free enquiry. The classroom is imagined as a neutral and objective space rather than perceived for 40

The University Classroom what it really is —in large part a reflection of the subjective cultural values and norms of the society in which it is located. Unfortunately, this illusion allows many teachers and students to collude in continual reification of a status quo that is as oppressive as it is exclusive. Another factor contributing to dysfunctionality in university classrooms is the extremely limiting nature of the concept of "academic freedom" as it is presently understood. Certainly, if a learning environment is to be free from harassment and discrimination, some limits must be placed on freedom of expression. But this is not enough. If academic freedom is to represent any kind of human ideal, freedom of expression needs also to be grounded in a positive value system. Its raison d'etre must be the liberation of all the personalities who participate in the educational enterprise. These insights need to be applied to the difficult problem of challenging racism, ethnic stereotyping and the subtler forms of discrimination in our university classrooms. University policies and disciplinary procedures are clearly important components of an antiracist program. But as long as they do not translate into a truly inclusive classroom climate, they function merely as negative constructs. Like the concept of academic freedom, they provide certain protection from blatant oppression but do little to improve interaction among people(s) with varied histories, emotions and outlooks. The North American university is less a Medieval ivory tower than a microcosm of the diverse society in which we live. In our classrooms, we have students who belong to the dominant cultures (European descent) and those who belong to historically under-represented racial and ethnocultural backgrounds (First Nations peoples, those of African or Asian descent and many other ethnicities). If university education is to be relevant and effective for all of these communities, there are certain facts that all sensitive university teachers must confront and overcome in their classrooms: many students' ethnic and racial histories have been excluded from the curriculum minorities are typically marginalized in our classrooms and in campus life the life experience of marginalized communities generates barriers to effective classroom teaching and learning. How educators - whether they are professors, teaching assistants, academic administrators or other teaching professionals —manage their classrooms will provide the key to whether their students will excel academically and become creative and collaborative members of the local and global community. Well-meaning university teachers often fail in their educational missions simply because they do not appreciate the complex and subtle dynamics operating in their classrooms, or have not taken the time to introduce basic norms and guidelines that encourage the participation and cooperation of all of their students. I do not want to underestimate the profound difficulty of tackling the ideological supports of racism. The phenomenon is complex and requires a response that is subtle 41

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

and sophisticated. But I would like to suggest that a good starting place for deconstructing the supports of racism is to practise a kind of teaching that has been around for a long time and that has a proud history at this university, that is, engaged and inclusive pedagogy. Engaged and inclusive pedagogy requires everyone, including the instructor, to participate actively in the learning experience. It also means providing a learning situation that requires participants to practise positive freedom by taking risks and by sharing insights and experiences. Engaged and inclusive pedagogy is teaching and learning that cultivates a healthy and healing relationship — one that encourages participants to bring their personalities and life experiences to the lecture hall and the discussion table. When everyone participates as much as possible in the classroom —essays in this volume will show that even large lectures can allow for participation — and when individuals are present in body, mind and spirit, then mutual sharing, understanding and respect inevitably occur. In the modern multicultural and multiracial university classroom, engaged pedagogy implies giving little credence to the myths that support discrimination, such as racism no longer exists in our society all Canadian citizens have equal opportunities the pursuit of knowledge is always objective the classroom is a neutral laboratory. But let's not mince words. No matter how progressive, engaged and inclusive the pedagogy is, it will never make a classroom neutral. At its best, it enables participants to begin to dismantle unnecessary power structures. And it generates an environment that encourages an appreciation of diversity and difference mutual respect and civility fairness and trust. Engaged and inclusive pedagogy has always cultivated these norms. I would argue that it is not only a rational framework for teaching and learning, but that it is absolutely indispensable in our multicultural and multiracial environment. Until university teachers realize that they are not always impartial dispensers of wisdom — the concept was arrogant even in historically more homogenous environments - the chilly classroom climate will remain as uncomfortable for them as for their students. University administrators play a critical role in the development of progressive teaching. Universities have been aggressive in promoting research but remiss in acknowledging innovations in teaching, in supporting research on inclusive pedagogies and in developing effective criteria for evaluating good teaching. Universities must begin to recognize and reward teachers who practise engaged and inclusive pedagogy. Progressive teaching practices should not be regarded as a pedagogical cure-all. Teachers will always be confronted by the dilemma of their own authority and the need 42

The University Classroom to wield it responsibly. Students cannot be expected always to bring every bit of their personality and their lives to the classroom. Such an expectation constitutes another form of oppression. And major roadblocks will always be there in the form of student apathy, teaching workloads and the lack of institutional or public support for the educational enterprise. But the biggest losers in any conceivable educational scenario will be teachers who continue to play the role of impartial dispenser of wisdom and students who allow themselves to be passive receptors. This article is directed to all university teachers, some of whom might be new to the task of managing a multicultural and multiracial classroom. I'd like to close, therefore, by sharing a useful checklist for engaged pedagogy as it relates to race and ethnicity. This list is borrowed from the works of North American antiracism and race relations educators and supplemented by my own practical experience. My hope is that teachers will not view it as definitive. The dos and don'ts in the checklist1 on page 44 might seem somewhat simplistic to those who already have experience working in racially diverse environments. For example, it is patently more difficult to establish ground rules for mutual respect and to develop unbiased terminology than the simple recommendations here might appear to suggest. My intention in presenting the checklist — with all its limitations — is to encourage teachers in beginning the process of creating more liberating classroom environments and thinking about what it means to educate a diverse student body.

Notes 1. Adapted from "Working with special (diverse) populations," (1982) and Solar (1992).

References hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. Solar, Claudie, (ed.) 1992. Inequity in the classroom: A manual for pro fessors and adult educators. Montreal: Concordia University, Office on the Status of Women. "Working with special (diverse) populations." 1982. Boston: Community Resources Center.

43

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM Checklist For Engaged Pedagogy

DISCOURAGE qualifiers that reinforce racial stereotypes the assumption that all members of racial groups are the same, or even similar ethnic cliches racist or ethnocentric jokes patronizing behaviour or tokenism by race the expectation that students of non-European ancestry will respond for their entire ethnoracial group the avoidance of eye contact with students of non-European ancestry relating a student's academic difficulties with her or his ethnoracial background using a "colour code" to describe or interpret the actions of students ENCOURAGE acknowledgment of the presence of racial diversity in your classroom taking responsibility for managing or monitoring ethnic and racial interactions the establishment of ground rules for mutual respect in the classroom choosing language and usage that do not reinforce bias giving equal respect to all races and presenting a balanced representation in visual aids and other media choosing texts and print media that avoid racial discrimination and stereotyping the expansion of your horizon by including contributions from nontraditional scholars the acknowledgement of and respect for all of your students' accents being patient with students whose first language is not English or French students to relate their learning to their personal experience.

44

Diversity in the Classroom: Engagement and Resistance CarlE. James

The diversity to be found among today's university student population in terms of social class, gender, race, ethnicity, language,1 sexuality and dis/ability poses significant challenges that require us to examine our pedagogical approaches if we are to make university education relevant and equitable to students. Much of this diversity in the student body is brought about by conscious efforts to remove barriers to university education. As a result, the new population of students enters with the expectation that the principles of access and equity will be reflected in the pedagogical approach to their education, and that their cultural interests and needs will be recognized and supported (Grayson and Williams 1994; Grayson, Chi and Rhyne 1994; James 1994a; Schenke 1993). An antiracist approach to education attempts to meet the needs and interests of students by recognizing and validating their lived experiences and engaging them in dialogue that is premised on the "theoretical discourse of empowerment." In antiracism education as well, educators are prepared to acknowledge and question their relative power and privileged positions (Dei 1994, 1). In pedagogy and content, antiracism educators make explicit the contradictions and paradoxes that are inherent in institutions that promise equality and inclusivity while producing and reproducing inequalities based on race, class, gender and dis/ability. It is a critical approach to education that engages students in theorizing about social issues so as to produce transformative action. Working within this antiracist framework and reflecting on my own experiences as an educator working with students generally, and teacher candidates in particular, I will explore three issues: education in a diverse context, dialogical or interactive pedagogy and resistance.

Education in a Diverse Context In his foreword to Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968), Richard Shaull writes:

45

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it, or it becomes "the practice of freedom," the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world (15). To engage in the latter function, the social, political, economic, cultural and historical contexts in which education takes place must be considered. The racial, ethnic and economic diversity reflected in our university classrooms (Found 1992, Ahamad 1987) must be met by course materials and pedagogical approaches that address the respective needs, interests and aspirations of the students that are in those classrooms. In addressing diversity, we must address the issue of difference. As George Dei (1994) points out, we must ensure that the "politics of difference does not paralyse or compromise" (3) the goal of making education relevant to, and inclusive of, all students. The experiences of all must be validated, and differences must be critically analyzed and questioned. In particular, the experiences of marginalized groups —racial and ethnic minorities, women, the working class, disabled people, lesbians and gays —must be evident in the curriculum so that these students are not further marginalized by their absence. As educators, we must be conscious of our power, authority and privilege in the classroom, as well as recognize how we influence the learning process. We must be conscious of the ways in which our roles and identities affect our interactions with students. This point has been examined by a number of professors whose work provides models for our individual responsibilities in this regard (Ahlquist 1992, hooks 1988, James 1994a, Mukherjee 1994, Ng 1994, Sleeter 1994). I will return to this point in the section on resistance.

Dialogical or Interactive Pedagogy What we teach, how we teach and the questions we raise are certainly not independent of who we are. This understanding is critical in the teaching and learning process. As already pointed out, professors are not neutral, nor do the students see us as neutral. Therefore, we must also understand the students' perceptions and the factors that inform their perceptions. A dialogical or interactive approach provides space for active class participation and for students to contribute to their own learning based on their experiences and expectations. It requires students to understand and see the teaching/learning process as one in which their participation is valued. It enables us as educators to learn about the students' experiences so that we might build on these experiences. It provides us with an understanding of the framework into which new information is being incorporated and of how that framework might be used to understand the new information (Sleeter 1994). It is also a way of inviting students to question, and to hear about their struggles with new or contradictory information so that it can be 46

Diversity in the Classroom

addressed. As well, it allows students to share with each other, and in bell hooks's words, "come to voice" (1988). Getting students to articulate their positions in class is not always easy. Indeed, traditional schooling might have taught them that there are right and wrong answers, that teachers are endowed with the information and that their role is to listen, take notes and be ready to reproduce the notes in the examination. No wonder some are reluctant to talk in class. Many students might perceive the dialogical approach as intimidating. Some might fear being challenged or appearing uninformed or unintelligent. Those who participate might be perceived as "talking too much" and consequently might be criticized. Indeed, questioning students, questioning what they believe or have come to accept as "truth" or "fact," is always a problem. The perception that truth and fact reside in the educator — the one with the knowledge — is pervasive. When educators attempt to challenge this notion, and therefore open the class for all to contribute their knowledge, some student might say, as I heard recently: "I did not come here to hear what other students' opinions are, I came to hear what you have to say because you have the information and the knowledge." Challenging beliefs about how knowledge is constructed and the value placed on knowledge is a significant factor in getting students to listen to and respect each other in class. They need to see themselves as also creating knowledge and contributing to the development of knowledge. Students are sometimes reluctant to question things, not because they are unfamiliar with the issues being discussed, but because they have come to accept the idea that some issues are best addressed by "experts," such as the educator/professor, or by people whom they believe understand these issues because of their lived experiences. For instance, white students or male students tend to expect racial minorities or women to address issues of racism or sexism. However, it is necessary to encourage all students to address these issues. They have experiences with these issues as well, and it is important for them to engage in critical analyses of these subjects. It is crucial that students understand that they all bring insights and interpretations, which are informed by their particular identities and experiences. Often, on issues of race I have been asked, "What do you think?" before I could throw the question or issue out for discussion. We must avoid making students, or ourselves if we are perceived as "having the experience," the only voices that are heard on such issues. In not encouraging other voices, we could be reinforcing sexism, racism, heterosexism or classism, in that, as bell hooks points out, we take the burden of accountability away from those who consider themselves exempt, while placing it on those who are perceived as having experiences with the issues. Sharing one's ideas sometimes means taking risks. But doing so is influenced by the demographic makeup of the class and the speaker's perception of the extent to which her or his criticisms might be challenged. For example, I teach teacher candidates, and one of the things we talked about during the Christmas season was the 47

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

different ethnocultural or religious celebrations at this time of year. I asked some of the candidates to return in January with what they had learned about the different celebrations. Kwanzaa was one of the celebrations they identified. During the first class, one of the students who had researched Kwanzaa volunteered to talk about what she had found out. She simply talked about what she had read. I then asked her what she thought about the celebration and the philosophy behind it. She replied, "It is okay." I asked about her perceptions of the relevance of such a celebration, and whether, like other groups, black people are entitled to have this ritual acknowledged in schools, particularly at this time of the year. She replied, "Everyone is entitled to their practices." This white female student did not wish to take a risk, particularly in a class with black students. In questioning her I was aware of the risks and of her desire to avoid offending me or any of the racial-minority students. Nevertheless, I maintain that in an educational setting, it is important to encourage students to reflect critically on their positions and to question their own positions. The student would, of course, have a position about certain celebrations, for example Christmas, that occur at the same time. This student eventually will be working in multicultural classrooms so I think that it was appropriate to engage her in considering how she viewed or understood Kwanzaa based on the information she had, how she viewed it after her research and whether she had broadened or shifted her position. Having this kind of dialogue in class sometimes produces tension and conflict. Our culture tends to avoid what is perceived as "conflict" or "confrontation." When it arises during classes, it is expected that the course director will resolve the differences or conflict and provide closure. The expectation is that individuals should be made to feel comfortable again. It is, however, not always possible to restore comfort or provide resolution or closure to discussions. But we can help students learn how to live with discomfort and manage tension and conflict, and to understand their sources. Sometimes this might mean engaging them in further discussions about the subject, having them raise questions and leaving them to arrive at what might be considered their own resolution and closure. Responsibility for seeking one's own closure is important to the learning process; learning does not begin or end in the classroom with that lesson or with that particular course director. Any discussion might be just the beginning of a long and difficult process in which students raise questions to be answered later, even after the course is over. Students should learn that unanswered questions do not always indicate ignorance but can reflect a critical and analytical mind.

Resistance When we challenge or question traditionally held views, when new information interferes with individuals' understanding of events, when we provide information that individuals resist, when students are unfamiliar with the pedagogical approach taken in a course, or, as Roxana Ng (1994) writes, when both the course "content and the teacher represent authority in a power structure that marginalizes" white males 48

Diversity in the Classroom

(43), then it is likely that students will resist. In essence, resistance will be a part of any classroom discourse in which, as Deborah Britzman (1995) points out, we willfully interfere with individuals' understanding, knowledge or sense of identity. Whatever form resistance takes, it is important to note both what is resisted and who resists (Ahlquist 1992, Britzman 1991, Tatum 1992). When students attend classes because they want to know what is on the examination, then they expect the course director to take an approach that provides the materials in a lecture format so that they have in their notes what will be on the exam. When they come to find out what exactly the course director wants in the essay, or to discover the political orientation of the course director so as to submit work that will be approved, they will resist any attempts to engage in dialogue. Individuals want to be liked and to maintain favourable relations with their peers and the course director; thus, they might be reluctant to respond critically to comments by either. Students wish to receive good grades so they might feel that challenging the course director will be to their detriment. Also, they might have difficulty separating criticism of an idea from criticism of an individual. An individual's idea is seen as intimately linked to the person; any criticism of the idea is seen, or received, as a personal matter —even as a putdown or rejection. Therefore, students resist engaging in critical discussions. In the area in which I teach, attempts to get teacher candidates to comment critically on the educational system in Ontario are often met with resistance because students do not wish to see the flaws of the system. After all, it is where they intend to work after graduation; also, it is often the system through which they "made it." Criticisms sometimes even produce tears. For example, after a class in which we discussed the role of teachers and the extent to which they contribute to unequal educational outcomes for students, one student, who was very upset during the class and was, as other students said, "defending the system," explained to me after class, "I don't think my parents are what you guys are talking about." Both of her parents are teachers and she saw the discussion as a criticism of her parents, teachers in general and a school system that she felt were trying hard to address the needs and concerns of today's students. On this basis, she rejected the criticisms presented in class. Sometimes resistance takes the form of silence. For instance, when I discuss employment equity and access to post-secondary education in classes, articulate, participatory students, usually white males, will disengage from the discourse, particularly in a situation where women or racial minorities are present (more so if they are the professors) or if the general sentiment in the class is one of support for equity programs. Their silence is very noticeable. If they are asked to comment, the response might be, "Everything has been said," or "I don't have anything to say." There are times when students will put forward their ideas and remain silent afterwards. Some might even leave the room. Such actions reflect students' attempts to exercise their power or their unwillingness to be challenged on their positions (Delpit 1998, Tatum 1992). 49

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

One might assume that members of marginalized groups would welcome the opportunity to participate in class discussions, particularly around issues that validate their experiences. As course directors, we would hope that by providing space for dialogue, students from marginalized groups, whose experiences traditionally have not been represented in class materials, would "come to voice" and provide their perspectives. But their participation in class is sometimes limited; they too use silence as a strategy of resistance. This might be a result of their skepticism or distrust of the institution's or course director's commitment to interrogating and changing the status quo. Or they might not wish to be made obvious in class, particularly if they are in small numbers. Although the student population has changed and reading materials no longer reflect a male, Eurocentric, middle-class bias, students are not convinced that it is safe to provide alternative viewpoints (James 1994b). Further, marginalized group members might not wish to destroy the alliances they have made with other students or call attention to themselves. Consequently, they resist discussing issues that make them "realize or reflect on their experiences with oppression" (Ng 1994, 43) or matters that place dominant-group students on the defensive. For example, racial-minority students might resist any discussions that support employment equity or access initiatives to education by remaining silent or by arguing that the current system of meritocracy is effective in meeting the needs of all Canadians (Grayson, Chi and Rhyne 1994). For these students, maintaining positive relations with their peers and the integrity of their group with regard to their academic ability might be the basis for their resistance. They are protecting themselves. Challenging students' viewpoints and presenting alternatives is sometimes met with resistance not only because students believe that "everyone is entitled to their viewpoint because we live in a democratic society," but also because they cannot live with, or are not prepared to live with, the proposed alternative. Furthermore, the alternative idea that is advanced might be dismissed or challenged because it might be perceived as untheoretical, self-serving, too radical or biased. In some cases, the identity of the person who presents the alternative viewpoint is factored into the interpretation of what is said, whether that person is a student or a professor. For instance, the viewpoints of women and racial minorities, who assert that inequality, sexism, racism and discrimination are responsible for the patterns of educational and occupational participation in our society, are sometimes resisted. In commenting on the paradoxical situation of minority faculty members at universities, Roxana Ng (1994) points out that when students resist the teaching of minority faculty, the form such resistance takes is related to the fact that these faculty members are perceived in a "gendered and racialized" manner. In contrast, resistance to white male faculty members might take the form of challenging their course content or materials or engaging them in "intellectual debates." In the case of minority faculty, in addition to course materials, the person herself becomes a target. As a racial minority and a woman, I have no authority despite my formal position.. .The sexism and racism in this case is not only based on [stu50

Diversity in the Classroom

dents'] attitudes toward minorities in general, it is about minorities in positions of authority whose knowledge and expertise is often questioned (43).

Conclusion We see here a number of contradictions, conflicts and tensions that are inherent in the ways we engage students in the classroom. Evidently, there is no particular approach to teaching that will alleviate the problems we are bound to experience in the teachinglearning process. Probably Deborah Britzman (1995) said it best when she said that we "cannot teach anyone anything. We can only create conditions where they get to know how they learn, what they wish to learn, and understand what they think they are saying when they say what they say." Even as leaders in the classroom, we are not neutral. We come to our teaching with particular notions of what we wish students to know and how they should know it; we employ our understanding of the ways of knowing. Hence, there is the tendency for us to reproduce ourselves in the classroom. With this in mind, it seems appropriate that we use an approach to education that provides everyone with an opportunity to share her or his interpretation and knowledge. By so doing, we can provide space for dialogue and help students to manage their confusions, conflicts, tensions, doubts and ambiguities, which are inherent in any learning process. If we acknowledge the risks involved in the teaching-learning process and that students come to classes with particular ideas and expectations of the courses, we can respond to their expectations by talking directly about our pedagogical approach in the first class. So in addition to distributing course outlines, we must say how we intend to conduct the class. Often students will forget, and weeks into the course we will hear complaints. When I have reminded students of what I had said at the beginning of the course, they sometimes respond as if they are hearing the information for the first time. Constant reminders and talking explicitly about the pedagogical approach as the course proceeds might be necessary. Finally, it is important for us to model for students an approach to learning that acknowledges and respects differences and promotes equality. When we engage students in critical reflections and interrogation of issues, we are disturbing or interfering with their worldview and their sense of identities, even if they are voluntary course participants. Our responsibility, then, is to make the learning process as conducive as possible to dialogue.

51

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Notes 1. In his study on the participation of different ethnic groups in post-secondary education, Ahmad (1987) found that there is a significant increase in the participation of racial minorities. At York University, Found (1992) showed that in 1991, some 54 different ethnic origins were represented in the undergraduate student population representing 22 major ethnic groups in Canada, including British (English, Scottish and Irish), Italian, French, Jewish, South Asian, Asian and African. While English was the first language of 67% of students, Italian and Chinese were the two most prevalent other "mother tongues." Nineteen per cent of students were racial minorities.

References Ahamad, Bill. 1987. Participation of different ethnic groups in post-secondary education. Ottawa: Department of the Secretary of State. Ahlquist, Roberta. 1992. Manifestations of inequality: Overcoming resistance in a multicultural foundations course. In Research and multicultural education: From the margins to the mainstream, ed. C.A. Grant, 89— 105. New York: Palmer Press. Britzman, Deborah P. 1991. Decentering discourses in teacher education: Or, the unleashing of unpopular things. Journal of Education 173 (3): 60-80. . 1995. Comments made at the seminar "Problematizing pedagogy." 19 Jan., York University. Dei, George. 1994. Anti-racist education: Working across differences. OrbJt25 (2): 1—3. Delpit, Lisa D. 1988. The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review 5% (3): 280-98. Found, William C. 1992. Who are York's undergraduates? Results of the university's 1991 comprehensive student survey. Toronto: Office of the President, York University. Freire, Paulo. 1968. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Grayson, J. Paul, Tammy Chi and Darla Rhyne. 1994. The social construction of "visible minority" students of Chinese origin. Toronto: Institute for Social Research, York University. Grayson, J. Paul and Deanna Williams. 1994. Racialization and black student identity at York University. Toronto: Institute for Social Research, York University. hooks, bell. 1988. Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Toronto: Between the Lines. James, Carl E. 1994a. The paradox of power and privilege: Race, gender and occupational position. Canadian Woman Studies 14: 47-51. . 1994b. "Access students": Experiences of racial minorities in a Canadian university. Paper presented at the Society for Research into Higher Education, 1994 Annual Conference: The Student Experience. University of York, York, England. Mukherjee, Arun. 1994. The "race consciousness" of a South Asian (Canadian, of course) female academic. In Talking about difference: Encounters in culture, language and identity, C.E.James and A. Shadd (eds.), 201-7. Toronto: Between the Lines. Ng, Roxana. 1994. Sexism and racism in the university: Analysing a personal experience. Canadian Woman Studies 14: 42-46.

52

Diversity in the Classroom Schenke, Arlene. 1993. Being "access*'/doingchange: Confronting difference in teacher education: A reading of teacher candidates' experiences of the faculty of education access initiative and consecutive program. Toronto: York University. Sleeter, Christine. 1992. Resisting racial awareness: How teachers understand the social order from their racial, gender, and social class locations. Educational Foundations (spring): 7—32. 1994. White racism. MulticulturalEducation 39: 5-8. Tatum, Beverly Daniel. 1992. Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review 62: 1-24. Williams, Patricia. 1991. The alchemy of race and rights: Diary of a law professor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

53

Responsibility and Respect in Critical Pedagogy Leslie Sanders

Certain issues in critical and feminist pedagogy trouble me, even though these approaches have had a profound impact on my own teaching practices. It seems to me that critical and feminist pedagogy both operate with a somewhat contradictory set of assumptions about students. On the one hand, they emphasize the knowledge and experience that students bring to their education, whether acquired from schooling or from life. On the other hand, they seem to assume that students need to be shaken out of ignorance and complacency, challenged in a way that disturbs their most deeply held assumptions about the world. However, when challenging our students, we ourselves often make assumptions about the nature of our students' experience and then teach to our presumptions. I believe critical and feminist pedagogies do present important challenges to traditional ways of teaching, but I think that they also impose on students particular forms of participation in the educative process, and in so doing, can undermine the results they seek. The contradictions within these pedagogies particularly trouble me because they can be disrespectful of students. I will illustrate what I mean with some examples. The first time I recognized these problems was over an incident that occurred some twenty years ago in a first-year humanities course on postwar culture. (Atkinson College, now Atkinson Faculty of Liberal and Professional Studies, where I have taught for more than twenty-five years, was devoted to "adult" students. Much of what I say is influenced by the fact that my career has been with adult students, although my comments do, I think, apply to younger students as well.) Filled with texts that vividly depicted the violence and inhumanity of Western culture and recent history, the course aimed, at least in part, at shaking out of complacency what the lecturing team arrogantly assumed were the (white, middle class?) conventional beliefs and experiences of a typical Atkinson class of the time.

54

Responsibility and Respect in Critical Pedagogy One night we showed, with no forewarning, Resnais's film Night and Fog, a graphic depiction of Nazi concentration camps. Well, it turned out that a student in the class was a survivor of one of those camps, and the film was extremely traumatic for her. I was humiliated by my arrogant assumption that the film was "news," and twenty years later still regret the pain I caused her. Ten years later, I showed the film again in a similar course, although this time with forewarning. Several students, who had known little about the Holocaust, were physically ill after seeing it. Another student, whose uncle was a German soldier killed for his opposition to Hitler, spoke painfully to me of the uncle's diaries, still in his family's possession. He felt his uncle was dishonoured by the way the course instructors dealt with the Holocaust material. This experience again reminded me that we do not know our students; we do not know to whom we are speaking and we cannot and should not make any assumptions about "where they are coming from." The danger of assumptions has also been made evident to me in teaching over the years an English course required of Atkinson students for whom English is a second language. These students come from all over the world and they have completed at least secondary education outside of Canada. I have come to understand that the course serves to introduce these students to the culture of the Canadian classroom. This culture is particular and it arises from the cultural and political practice of the dominant class in this country. It rewards speaking over silence; it demands questioning and critical analysis of material rather than uncritical acceptance (although, in truth, students rarely are encouraged to challenge the instructor's underlying assumptions). It penalizes lack of "participation" and simple memorization of material. It proposes that teacher and student are together engaged in making knowledge rather than privileging the knowledge and authority of the teacher and expecting the acquiescence of the student. Yet many of our students come from cultural backgrounds that view education quite differently and as a result, their experience of education has been quite different from that of students wholly educated in Canada. For a variety of reasons, including strictures related to gender, these students might find the behaviour expected of them in the Canadian classroom inappropriate. Typically, we encourage them to learn Canadian behaviour, perhaps necessarily so, but I think that they have the right to retain practices with which they are more comfortable, as long as they can also meet the requirements of the Canadian system. Another example comes from a more recent experience teaching a first-year humanities course called "Concepts of Male and Female in Western Culture." Approximately one third of the students were men and the men typically chose not to speak during tutorials. When I questioned some of them about their silence, they said that they wanted to listen to what the women had to say. They were thoughtful and hard working; they just chose not to participate in discussions. They did not feel silenced. They chose silence. Is this lack of participation? I don't think so.

55

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

I raise the issue of silence because it is a focus of radical pedagogies and is usually construed negatively. We often assume that the people who do not talk are "silenced" or unengaged in the course. I am certain that some people are, in fact, silenced in the classroom — by material and opinions that they find offensive, by curriculum that negates or obscures their history and experience. This kind of silence certainly interferes with those students' participation in their education and should be interrogated. But I am struck by the number of students who, in a course evaluation where I asked about tutorial participation, wrote, "I like to hear what the other students think," and "I prefer to listen." A corollary to this kind of silence occurs when students feel that they have little experience when compared to others in a class. Again I draw from the humanities course "Concepts of Male and Female in Western Culture," in which students ranged in age from 18 to 65 and came from countries on every continent. Some students were just beginning their adult lives and some were fortunate enough to be emerging from a protected and peaceful upbringing. Others, however, were painfully attempting to repair lives that had been burdened, even shattered, in a variety of ways and the experiences they shared or which resonated in their comments truly "silenced" many of us -1 include myself. Listening is an act of learning, too. Perhaps related, when working in the Atkinson Essay Tutoring Centre, I have been told from time to time, by younger students in particular, that they feel they have no "experience" to bring to their essays. They therefore fear they won't "do well" because "everyone else in the class has 'traumas' of one sort or other to analyze" and "that is what the professor is looking for." Surely the disempowerment of such a student, who might not have the opportunity to connect course material to life experience, is as in need of interrogation as that of students whose lives provide them with an overabundance of difficulty. Placing experience at the core of our pedagogy is fraught with complication. As well, there are responsibilities attached to eliciting certain kinds of participation. If we seek to "disturb" our students' views of the world, we should not be surprised if they do, in fact, become very disturbed indeed. Yet we are not therapists and we have limited time to give our students individually to talk out matters that arise for them should they come to us for help or guidance. Perhaps because I teach in areas where the material is very personal for many of my students, I might be particularly concerned about this issue, but I am sure that many of us encounter students with problems that are provoked or exacerbated by material in our courses. If a student is not prepared to deal with certain issues in ways we expect, certainly they also have the right to protect themselves, whether consciously or not, from the kind of selfexamination or life change that dealing with the issue might imply at that point. I think we can open a space both for those who want to be disturbed and for those who choose otherwise. For example, in a third-year humanities course, "Black Writers and their Worlds," I assign a "response" journal. Students are expected to submit a page or two of writing 56

Responsibility and Respect in Critical Pedagogy each week; they are instructed to respond, in whatever fashion they wish, to course materials, lectures or discussions. Journal entries have ranged from intensely personal commentary on private experience to critical analysis of particular texts. At the end of the course, some students end up with an intellectual diary and others with the germ of a variety of academic papers. I don't think that either is "better": each student chooses her manner of engagement in the course material. I believe that we have to respect the ways in which students choose to engage in their education. I think we can fulfil our responsibility to present challenging issues and material and also respect individuals' rights and responsibilities as adults to pursue their education as they please. I fully support the principles of both critical and feminist pedagogy and offer my reservations in the hope that they will start dialogue and discussion about the ethical problems they raise.

57

Feminist Pedagogy: Paradoxes in Theory and Practice1 Kathryn McPherson

Over the past twenty-five years, feminist scholars and activists have challenged teachers to create a curriculum in which women's experiences and actions play a central role. Feminist pedagogy, as it came to be called, included more than just making course content gender balanced; it involved transforming how that content was transmitted, thereby making the classroom a site of social change. This article outlines three major elements of feminist pedagogy and, using examples from my own teaching of Canadian history, will consider some of the theoretical and practical strengths and limitations feminist pedagogy offers. Early proponents of feminist pedagogy envisioned teaching methods that would subvert conventional relations of dominance and subordination in the classroom and thus outside of it. Building on critical pedagogy developed by educators such as Paulo Freire and on the feminist critique of Enlightenment thought, feminist teachers focused on three elements of classroom relations. The first was an emphasis on women's own experiences. Rather than trivializing students' experiences outside the classroom, those experiences were to be drawn on and validated. In this way, the conventional divisions between theoretically based knowledge and "the knowledge of everyday life" were to be dissolved. A second strategy of feminist pedagogy emphasized collaboration and collective learning rather than competition and individualism. Creating a "safe" environment in which all students had the opportunity to express themselves necessitated small-group teaching and small class size. Third, feminist pedagogy sought to transform relationships between teachers and students, reducing hierarchical relations between those two groups and democratizing relations in the classroom. As such, teachers were expected to "give away" power and authority to promote student-centred learning.

58

Feminist Pedagogy

Validation of Experience The question of experience is a particularly interesting one. In the discipline of history, instructors usually struggle to have students understand the past on its own terms, rather than from only the perspective of the students' own experiences. To balance the tension between questions generated out of contemporary politics and experience with answers generated in the past, the major research assignment in my third-year course "History of Women in Canada" is based on primary documents created by Canadian women. Students must locate a primary source and analyze whether the author's experiences and beliefs conform to or challenge what we think we know about Canadian women's history. In so doing, women's own words about their lives become the starting point for historical knowledge. Students are also required to provide a methodological discussion identifying how they used the source, why the source was created and preserved and the degree to which we can generalize from that one woman's experience. In this way, students consider how we know anything about women's lives in the past and how that knowledge revises the conventional historical narrative. One option in this assignment is for students to create their own primary source by interviewing a Canadian woman aged 65 or older. Students who choose this option are most acutely aware of the importance of collaboration in academic research. If nothing else, the student depends on successful interaction with the interviewee to complete the assignment.

Collective and Collaborative Learning To encourage students to work collectively, I ask them to prepare a preliminary methodological analysis of their primary source (based on a set of questions I provide) and to bring that two-page discussion to class. There, I ask students to pair up, read each other's analysis and raise questions or issues about each other's source. The pairs can conduct their discussion in the cafeteria, in the hall or in the classroom, but after half an hour, I ask them to reconvene and we spend much of the next hour in a largegroup discussion about the nature of their primary sources. When students raise an issue, I ask the group if anyone else discussed that problem or concern. The first few years I tried this strategy, I did it in tutorials, but as the class grew I have continued these group discussions in the lecture. Because students are reflecting on their own research experience, and because the purpose of the exercise is to share ideas, students are willing to participate with even as many as 100 students in the class. In my fourth-year seminar "Gender, Race and Ethnicity in the Canadian West," I have used a similar approach. Students are asked to bring to every class a two-page critical response about that week's readings. At the beginning of class, I ask students to exchange their response pieces and, once each student has read another's, I begin the discussion by asking students to comment on what they liked about their classmate's critical response. At the end of the seminar, I collect the response pieces and grade them on a pass or fail basis. This system of sharing written work has helped students communicate with each other and, because students get "credit" for having 59

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

done the reading, there is less competition in discussion and a greater willingness to let less-vocal members of the group insert themselves into the debate.

Transforming Power in the Classroom These small writing assignments achieve additional feminist goals. At a practical level, they ensure that students find an essay topic early in the term or do the reading for class, but at a pedagogical level they shift the focus away from the instructor and back onto methodological and theoretical questions generated by students themselves. Not only does this foster collaboration among students, it also places the instructor in the role of facilitator and resource rather than absolute authority. Students who choose the oral history option particularly benefit as they often have a great deal of time, energy and interest invested in the interview process (especially if they are interviewing a grandmother, aunt or family friend). Instead of writing a paper for a professor who "already knows the right answer," students focus on formulating the best explanation for their evidence. As such, the authority they bring to their writing often results in higher-than-usual-quality work for those students. Having acknowledged the important contribution that feminist pedagogy can make to a course like mine, it is also important to recognize the limitations and contradictions inherent in feminist teaching methods. However much instructors emphasize collaboration and non-hierarchical relations, competition for grades and scholarships still exists. Rather than looking to be liberated by their education, many students expect their teachers to assert standardized grading schemes and due dates, while others do not like collaborative work and resent having to "waste time" talking to their classmates or, worse, having a grade depend on a group project. As well, many elements of feminist pedagogy are premised on small class size, but as enrolments increase, creating small-group work becomes less viable. In the classroom, students' experiences vary tremendously according to cultural and social differences based on class, ethnicity, age and sexual orientation, and on students' experiences with sexism, racism, homophobia or class divisions. These differences can facilitate important interaction, but can also serve to marginalize minority students. For example, in a discussion of historical trends in marriage, students coming from a Euro-Christian tradition might see the connection between marriage, culture and patriarchy very differently than Muslim or Sikh students do. The latter groups might feel uncomfortable articulating a defence of traditional family structures to their white classmates. Seeking to validate women's experiences within the larger knowledge system, feminist professors often face the contradiction that some women's experiences are validated more than others. Just as women often feel that compared to the opinions of their male peers, their perspectives do not carry equal weight or get equal consideration, so too can women of colour or from cultural minorities be silenced or overwhelmed by the voices of white women. As they try to balance the diverse needs and expectations of students, feminist instructors face further complications pertaining to power relations within the classroom. Some object to the expectation that as women they will "naturally" create 60

Feminist Pedagogy a nurturing learning environment and insist that learning often is best achieved through challenge, not nurture. At the same time, feminist pedagogy encourages teachers to divest themselves of power, yet many instructors often feel they have little power to share. In large classes especially, professors who are female, gay, lesbian, from a cultural minority or merely young must often struggle to garner any authority or respect from students. For instructors addressing sensitive social issues in their courses, "giving away power" can leave classes open to racist, sexist or homophobic comments, which in turn can silence the very experiences feminist teachers were trying to nourish. As class sizes increase, the potential for these conflicts seems to grow exponentially.

Reflections on Feminist Pedagogy My women's history course attracts students who are committed feminists, who are self-proclaimed non-feminists, or who take the course because it fits their timetable. Some students are seeking heroic tales of strong women in the past, others expect a historical critique of patriarchal relations, while others demand extensive analysis of class and racial cleavages among women. Meeting these demands necessitates recognizing that not all students expect education to be "liberating" and that some students will commit more energy to the course than will others. Like their professor, students find adhering to feminist principles sometimes difficult. For instance, students who conduct oral interviews feel dismay when they discover that their heroic foremother was elitist. One student was bitterly disappointed to learn, contrary to family lore, that her much-adored grandmother had not been a missionary, but a missionary's wife, and as such enjoyed a privileged life in China as mistress of the manor, complete with numerous Chinese servants. Other students strive to reconcile their admiration for feminist foremothers with their recognition of the class and racial biases that those political leaders also espoused. In the long term, such insights provoke students to think in more sophisticated ways about the interplay of gender, race, class and sexuality in specific historical contexts, and therefore to recognize the complexity of social relations and of historical changes. In the short term, however, students might find the course material and classroom setting challenging and even threatening, regardless of how much authority I share or how much nurturing I do. As feminist instructors struggle to balance providing a nurturing, supportive environment with challenging the students intellectually or politically, they must also confront the reality that feminist pedagogy extends far beyond the classroom. Students approach feminist professors to discuss non-academic issues ranging from sexual assault to family violence and conflict to experiences of racism and homophobia. At the same time, feminist teachers, who are often in a minority in their departments or divisions, feel compelled to defend and promote female and minority students, as well as singular programs such as affirmative action, at departmental or divisional meetings, on scholarship committees and in the hallways. In this era of financial restraint, social conservatism and the "chilly" climate of the educational 61

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

system, feminist teachers wonder if the emotional and psychological demands of feminist pedagogy contribute to their own stress and affiliated health problems. Equally significant is the recognition that social change cannot be achieved only within the educational system and that the classroom is but one site where social relations might be transformed. However well-constructed or taught, an eight-month course cannot overcome completely students' previously held beliefs and attitudes, let alone well-entrenched systems of gender, sexual, racial or class privilege. Often we cannot even overcome our students' preconceptions of their instructors. Students who are uncomfortable with female authority figures or who resent non-white instructors will not likely have those sentiments erased, however revolutionary our pedagogy. Indeed, feminist pedagogy can reinforce some students' animosity towards us. Feminist pedagogy is not as easy as its early proponents believed, but this should not dissuade us from seeking alternative teaching methods. Rather, it alerts us to the reality that not all students learn at the same pace, in the same way or with the same goals, and to the reality that political circumstances themselves change. Given the complexity of social relations in the present and in the past and given the evolving critique of social inequity, we must expect that pedagogical methods will be revised and reformulated. In the words of feminist scholar Margaret Conrad, "as historians, we are not easily hoodwinked into believing that there is a fixed and immutable feminist pedagogy" (1995, 120). As gender relations between men and women, and among women, change, so too do teachers continue to reevaluate what constitutes social power in the classroom and in the wider society. This challenge keeps many feminist teachers listening to what their students have to say and engaging in a critical appraisal of pedagogical approaches.

Notes 1. Research for this paper was completed for a longer paper, coauthored with University of Ottawa professor Ruby Heap; see Heap and McPherson (1995).

References Conrad, Margaret. 1995. Keep it complex: Feminist pedagogies in a post-modernist, post-structuralist, postcolonialist, post-feminist world. In Teaching women's history: Cha/JengesandsoJutions,BettinaBfadbury (ed.) etaJ., 120. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca Educational Enterprise. Heap, Ruby and Kathryn McPherson. 1995. What is feminist pedagogy anyway? In Teaching women's history: Challenges and solutions, Bettina Bradbury (ed.) et aJ,, 101-17. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca Educational Enterprise.

62

Teaching "Women and Men in Organizations": Feminist Pedagogy in the Business School Pat Bradshaw and Catherine Ng

This article describes some of the experiences and insights gained from an attempt to use feminist pedagogy in a course entitled "Women and Men in Organizations." It was written as part of an ongoing dialogue between the course director and one of the students in the course. We evaluated the success of this teaching approach according to Carolyn Shrewsbury's three dimensions of empowerment, community and leadership. At the beginning of the course, the instructor advised students of the course objectives: to examine critically the growing literature on women and men in organizations to help students explore the personal implications of the changing composition of the work force and to assist them in developing insights and strategies for dealing with these changes to assess the implications of change for existing organizations and identify possible future organizational changes to use the classroom as a forum for developing different ways of teaching, learning and interacting that take into account gender differences. The course dealt with a range of topics, such as experiences of women in management, leadership styles of men and women, sexuality and sexual harassment, and the interface between work and family. The implications of each of the issues for managers and alternative organizational responses were outlined and evaluated. Assignments for the course included a critique of a classic management article replete with patriarchal assumptions, and a personal assessment paper in which students were asked to reflect on the course topics and explore the relevance of the readings in terms of their own experiences. Fifty per cent of each student's grade was based on a written learning contract negotiated with the course director. In this contract, students defined their learning objectives, the resources they would use to accomplish their objectives, the evidence 63

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

they would present to show they had accomplished their objectives and the criteria for evaluation, including the evaluator(s). The contract allowed students to work individually or in groups on topics of particular interest to them and to produce either written or oral reports based on different research alternatives, including interviews and library searches. The class was composed of forty-one students, only ten of whom were men.

Empowerment Although total power sharing is impossible in a classroom setting (Shrewsbury 1987), the course director did attempt, through various teaching devices, to empower students, to foster their independence, to develop their critical thinking skills and to encourage their use of personal voice. While in general the class experienced successes and failures in this aspect of feminist pedagogy, the learning contracts were a positive step towards power sharing. One factor that contributed to the success of the contracts was that there were students in the class who had previous experience contracting with the professor about their learning goals and who were able to reassure others about the integrity of the process. Part of one student's learning objective was to conduct two classes early in the course. This early power sharing modeled empowerment and participation and, as the course progressed, other students also took over sections of various classes and defined the topics for discussion. Unfortunately, the overall physical setup of the classroom worked against power sharing. Seats were banked in a horseshoe shape around the course director, positioned in the middle, who was forced by this setup to look up at the rows of students. This arrangement implicitly reinforces the message that authority is centralized and that expertise rests with a dominant figure, the professor. Further, the larger context of the business school, where the majority of courses do not value student empowerment, undercut student trust in such a change in teaching orientation.

Community For the course instructor, creating a sense of community in the classroom meant facilitating a classroom dynamic that enhanced learning through feelings of connection and mutuality. However, traditional classroom dynamics of competitiveness, individuality and autonomy tended to dominate. Little trust was developed and, as a result, little sharing, nurturing or even discussion of personal issues occurred. As a result, the professor was unable to create a sense of community or to model new ways for students to interact. Several factors could have combined to frustrate the course director's early efforts to establish a sense of community and cohesiveness. First, the class was too big to allow sufficient "air time" for all participants. Second, the composition of the class varied extensively over the first few sessions as students checked out this new "feminist" class. Third, the poor attendance of some students made the fostering of familiarity difficult. Finally, the issue of confidentiality of class discussions was not addressed at the beginning of the course. Some students were obviously concerned 64

Teaching "Women and Men in Organizations" about this, although no one raised it as an issue until well into the course. An experiential "trust circle" exercise, one aspect of a process discussion in which few students participated, revealed the extent to which students had failed to develop a sense of community. Later, in evaluating the course, we realized that it is important to establish ground rules and consensus on how to handle sensitive issues early in a course. The involvement of the minority male students in the course provides an example of how sensitive issues failed to be raised openly and constructively in class. In course evaluations, some women wrote that the course director discriminated in favor of the men "reacting as a protective mother to their statements," while others considered her "too hard on men." Had a greater sense of community developed, these concerns might have been voiced openly at the time and discussed in class. While a general sense of community did not evolve, a handful of students consistently participated and offered generous insights. Small-group discussions drew out others and various pedagogical tools, such as experiential exercises, role playing, cases and discussions of films or debates, did involve different individuals at different times. Indeed, one woman wrote in her self-assessment paper: I have allowed emotions to surface that I would have rather suppressed. During the course I have gone from an "everything is fine" attitude to a "man-hating" attitude, to an understanding of everyone. My emotions have ranged from indifference, to hate, to anger, to depression, to a new confidence. I have come full circle and now I feel that it is going to be okay, because I realize the wealth of options I do have. Clearly, the course had quite a profound impact on some of the students, evoking powerful emotions. But without a sense of community and a forum for expression and discussion, some students might have found their reactions difficult to handle. While the course director attempted to be accessible, on the whole, students did not call her or ask for emotional support, and the classroom itself did not provide a community of support.

Leadership The course director found that negotiating the leadership role presented her with a series of tensions and contradictions. Striking a balance that would achieve the objectives of the course became an ongoing challenge, particularly because, as Carolyn Shrewsbury (1987) says, "leadership is the embodiment of our ability and our willingness to act on our beliefs" (11). Some of the personal paradoxes the course director experienced included the tensions between a facilitative versus a more directive mode, a structured versus an unstructured format, a co-learner versus an expert stance, and an emotional, personal versus an unemotional, impersonal approach. The course director constantly questioned how to "lead" this type of class and what role to play at different times given the variety of needs and learning styles of the students. Slipping back into more traditional pedagogy as the impersonal expert who never displays emotion and keeps the course structured in a highly directive fashion 65

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

was at times tempting and also helpful. However, staying in that mode would have been counter to the pedagogical goals of the course. In hindsight, had the course director discussed her personal and emotionally difficult struggles more explicitly with the students, she might have helped them reflect more effectively on the tensions they must balance in their own careers. Such sharing and co-learning might have advanced the course objective of developing personal insight and strategies for dealing with change and allowed the classroom to become a genuine forum for learning about gender issues.

Conclusions Overall, the course director found her attempts to apply feminist pedagogy in a business school both frustrating and rewarding. Since writing this paper, she has taught the course again on several occasions. Nonetheless, the challenges outlined here continue to be relevant and she has learned to focus on two key areas of concern: the first has to do with structure and logistics and the second with more personal issues. In terms of structure it is best that the course have a limited enrolment (maximum of thirty) and that the classroom is a seminar room with moveable tables and chairs, providing an opportunity for everyone to make eye contact. Issues of confidentiality and ground rules for dealing with sensitive issues must be raised early in the course. Students need to be reminded of the importance of regular attendance and full participation. The course director needs to be available to students to discuss issues they are dealing with on an informal basis. The course director must be mindful of the power and privilege she carries within the classroom context. While espousing empowerment might be an ideal, the reality is that the course director has a lot of power resulting from her position in the institution, her ability to evaluate and allocate rewards (such as reference letters), her expertise and her control over course design and philosophy, as well as other less obvious sources of privilege. For example, her being middle-class, middle-aged, white and heterosexual are not insignificant influences on her interactions with students. As the course director's sensitivity to issues of privilege and power have improved, so the opportunities for discussion of different realities and experiences have increased. This is a subtle area and one that requires constant awareness and learning at a personal level. Empowerment is easy to espouse, but very difficult to achieve, particularly within the context of a highly structured, bureaucratic faculty in which the rational, unemotional and linear are valued and the dominant discourse excludes and marginalizes what is being done in the class. We have all to some extent internalized a patriarchal, sexist and racist worldview and making these dynamics conscious is an essential ingredient of feminist pedagogy. Writing this paper has provided both teacher and student with an opportunity for extensive reflection on the learning and teaching process we shared. Such revisiting, discussion and co-learning in a self-reflective way are another dimension of feminist pedagogy. The way we might conceptualize and write this paper tomorrow might be different as our understanding of the deep structures of power and the operation of 66

Teaching "Women and Men in Organizations" unconscious privilege increases. The current dialogues about feminist pedagogy are very exciting and the emerging strategies for creating sites for resistance and transgression (hooks 1994) within the dominant culture help us reframe our teaching practices. We look forward to continuing to develop our approaches to teaching and learning within the spirit of feminism.

References hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. Shrewsbury, C. 1987. What is feminist pedagogy? Women's Studies Quarterly \5 (fall/winter): 6—31.

67

Empowering Students Through Feminist Pedagogy Rae Anderson

Introduction One of the key concepts in feminist pedagogy is empowerment, which in much of the literature has been related to giving individuals a sense of control. Ideally, the feminist classroom provides students with control over the processes of their own education. More importantly, however, this individual empowerment is fostered within a climate of collective interdependence and responsibility for the integrity of the classroom. One of the greatest strengths of the feminist classroom is its potential to become a place where students are able to debate in a relatively protected sphere and work through issues together. The practice of feminist pedagogy requires ongoing evaluation by both students and teachers if this collective interdependence in the learning and teaching processes is to be fostered successfully. Reflecting on some of the contradictions that have arisen in my own teaching, this paper discusses some of the general principles of feminist pedagogy and shows how the classroom is a charged arena for contested meanings and interpretations.

Contradictions in the Feminist Classroom These reflections on feminist pedagogy are informed by my experiences teaching a third-year anthropology course, "Women, Culture and Society." Of the fifty students enroled, typically only three or four have been men, but it is usual to have at least a dozen ethnicities represented. Students' ages range from the early twenties to the late sixties. As a third-year course with no prerequisite, the course attracts students from many disciplines (anthropology, geography, history, linguistics, physical education, political science, psychology, religious studies, sociology, visual arts and women's studies). To take advantage of the diverse experiences of the students, I employed a number of teaching strategies that cultivated students' interdependence and encouraged them to work together to generate ideas that they might not have had by themselves. Lecture-listen-take notes, brain storming, small- and large-group discussions, case studies, role-playing, critical analysis of films, and problem solving all had a place in 68

Empowering Students Through Feminist Pedagogy our classroom. I encouraged students to review course content and suggest ways in which the curriculum could be enriched. Their contributions through class presentations were incorporated into the course and legitimated as "new knowledge." I solicited students' input on how they wished to be evaluated and tried to develop collaborative skills among students within structures that privileged and rewarded individual effort. At the same time, I attempted to be sensitive to, and actively encourage, multiple perspectives in the classroom through my choice of required readings and by facilitating the voicing of different perspectives on issues such as able-bodiedness, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status, sexuality, profession, religion and life stage. All these categories of identity and their complex intersections inform our relational positions, including our positions as students and professors. By such means, the feminist classroom challenges the conventions of a university education, which traditionally has relied on models of the teacher as authority. Yet our classrooms remain within the larger, inherently hierarchical, university system. However successful we are in sharing the pedagogical platform, shifting the axes of power in the classroom and blurring the boundary between student and teacher by understanding that we can all learn from each other, ultimately the instructor is required to assess, to rank and to pass judgement. At the end of the year, I considered how individual students had progressed in consciousness and knowledge of issues and how they rated in comparison with others in the class. I tallied up grades, adjudged and assigned marks. The political impact of this structure on students and teachers is profound. Even the physical environment of the classroom can hinder the feminist challenge to conventional academic structures. The seating arrangement in a classroom with fixed desks, chairs and lectern can subvert attempts to encourage critical discussions in small groups. Much of the work in "Women, Culture and Society" revolved around small-group discussions, role-playing exercises and paired work after an introductory lecture. Fixed seating arrangements presented a constraint for this kind of classroom work and required careful thinking about what kinds of roles were possible for students and teachers within the classroom. My goal in "Women, Culture and Society" was to encourage students to reflect critically on what feminist perspectives offer to the discipline of anthropology as well as for thinking about their own learning processes. Such a process leads, I believe, to empowerment for the student. That students can be empowered to take a leading role in their own schooling is, to my mind, one of the key goals of feminist pedagogy. This aspect of feminist pedagogy has much in common with the liberating mandate of Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy. And as Freire stated in A Pedagogy for Liberation (Shor 1987, 46) "I cannot proclaim my liberating dream and in the next day be authoritarian in my relationships with the students." The notion of empowerment in the classroom includes "both a psychological sense of personal control and concern with actual social influence, political power, and 69

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

legal rights" (Riger 1993, 280) and is linked with mastery, control and agency at the level of the individual student. Ideally, the feminist classroom enables students to feel an individual sense of control over the processes of their own education or of "leading forth" (from the Latin educere, to lead out). Empowering students has been a major focus in my own teaching. At the same time, however, it must be acknowledged that while my students might develop a greater personal sense of control over course content and structure, the challenge to the larger university structures may be slight.

Silencing in the Classroom Despite our best efforts to facilitate an open forum for discussion, issues of silencing in the feminist classroom can still be potent. The following quotations are anonymous feedback I received at the end of the 1992-93 academic year from two students in "Women, Culture and Society." The juxtaposition of these comments startlingly reveals the complexity of social dynamics in the classroom. Student one: This course defies description. There was almost no week that we had an actual lecture. First term I had six pages of notes, second term I had three pages of notes. If I wanted to have a polite conversation with friends I could save $500.00. [The professor] saw fit to mark politics rather than the answer to exams. Personal feelings interfere with her judgement. This is not a feminist course in any way.. .In the interest of brevity I will stop here. If I didn't have the politics of the university as a concern and my academic future involved I would have made a formal complaint. Student two: I thoroughly enjoyed the class, particularly the class presentations at the end, which served to "wrap-up" all that we had learned through the course of the year. I particularly enjoyed learning about "difference," "ethnocentrism" and "relativity." It is all too easy to get wrapped up in our own personal worlds that we can forget there are other perspectives in which we can view things. Also the discipline of feminist anthropology I find to be very encouraging in its approach to wholeness as opposed to the fragmenting disciplines that are traditionally practised. The first student disputes the integrity of "my" classroom as a feminist classroom, thus calling into question a single or essential definition of feminism. I obviously did not conform to this person's expectations of a feminist instructor.1 The alleged lack of lectures and the implied lack of instructor guidance during discussion both point to a lack of identifiable conventional structure, ostensibly a sorry failing of the course. The internalized need on the part of some students to see the teacher as the expert repository of knowledge and, concomitantly, to see texts as authoritative perpetuates a system of learning that feminist classrooms challenge. The first quote also highlights the vulnerability the student feels in lodging a complaint for fear of possible academic repercussions. The second passage affirms the diversity of experiences and multiple perspectives represented within the classroom. The student salutes the class presentations as 70

Empowering Students Through Feminist Pedagogy drawing together in a very real way a number of theoretical issues with which anthropologists often engage during the course of their work. These quotations exhibit different stages of intellectual understanding of the contributions of feminist research to the discipline of anthropology, as well as anthropology's contributions to feminism. The first quotation, with its suggestion of a "difference in politics," might be from someone who brings to the course an understanding, for example, that the apparent pervasiveness of male dominance in many societies represents a universal conspiracy against the sisterhood of women. There is a clear ideological rift between this view and one that understands, from the cross-cultural literature, that women's status and roles can differ tremendously along race, class and other modes of social organization. The second quotation acknowledges these kinds of differences and how such differences make a difference. The notion of the feminist classroom as a harmonious place where gender hierarchies, racial discrimination and class differences have been eradicated is an ideal. However, a number of feminist researchers have pointed out that such harmony often has been gained only through the silencing of certain voices in the classroom (Maher and Tetreault 1993,125). The charge, "This is not a feminist course in anyway," points directly, angrily and sadly to that silencing. The feminist classroom aims to offer a protected environment for contesting silencing and encouraging full participation and collective debate. However, achieving this and seeking, at the same time, to listen to the "silences" there might be in the classroom are not easily negotiated matters. I am thinking here of three other anonymous student comments on a question posed midway through the year. (There were only three such comments from forty-two student reaction papers handed in that day.) In answer to the question, "Are there any things or activities that make you feel uncomfortable in class?" one student responded, "Talking about race and racist issues. As a white woman I feel that my opinion is not valued as much as others'. People of colour are listened to more carefully." Another wrote, "Discussions which ask for personal opinions make me uncomfortable because I feel you can't (I can't) really express how you feel without having the other members pounce on you negatively." The third: "Sometimes I feel as if I can't say something because I don't want to offend people in class." Evidently, despite my attempts to encourage students to discuss issues and collectively build understanding, some students still felt silenced in the classroom. Manicom (1992) writes of this contradiction: If voices are contradictory and multiple and inscribed with dominant relations of oppression, then these relations are going to exist in the classroom. Questions demand to be asked: Who shares? Whose sharing is blocked? What is shared easily and what with difficulty? When is sharing empowering and when is it disempowering? (376)2

71

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Sensitivity and skillful, careful negotiation are required when one person's experience challenges, or even violates, another's in the classroom. An instructor needs to assist students in developing active listening skills and the ability to provide appropriate feedback through role reversal (looking at an issue from the point of view of another) and by jointly defining and clarifying problems or conflicts.3 By bringing these anonymous comments into the open, I was able to offer the class an opportunity to discuss why some people were feeling silenced and to work together to build a safer classroom environment for all. In the process, we were also able to explore broader issues of societal oppression. The feedback I have received from my students has required ongoing selfscrutiny, interpretation and accountability. The classroom has become a good place for me to begin "to learn how processes and things about which we are not aware can, despite our unknowing, have cfelt' effects" (Currie 1992, 357).

Feminisms in the Classroom "Women, Culture and Society" assessed the relevance of such well-worn cultural constructs as relativism, ethnocentrism, male, female, difference, agency, resistance and power. Without essentializing, we drew on students' experiences as well as on selected comparative readings to negotiate conflicting understandings of these cultural constructs. One of the major organizing principles of anthropology has long been the concept of cultural relativism; that is, that human behaviour and practices arise in the name of culture, conventionally defined as a shared and monolithic category. Tensions between the feminist agenda of actively reevaluating in order to seek social change, while acknowledging the analytical usefulness of cultural relativism, are no more palpable than when course content covers issues around the genital excision of women. The different voices in the classroom and in the readings - accepting, enraged, shocked, pragmatic, puzzled, defensive -challenged our ideas about cultural relativism and consensus. Singular notions of "feminism" have now been replaced by "feminisms." Third World feminisms are a clear example of this. Even within North America, the proactive expressions of feminisms are not homogeneous, and we need to acknowledge this and make efforts not to silence this difference as we debate our understandings of different social practices. The strength of the feminist classroom lies in its ability to work through such issues together creatively, to point to inequities, to debate in a protected sphere the precise nature of those inequities and to clarify the possibilities for change. More importantly, feminist classrooms specialize in the collective processes of sense-making, although the structures within which they operate might not wholly support such processes. The value of rigorously integrating personal knowledge with the experiences of others and with comparative readings is also central to feminist pedagogy in anthropology. Thus, individual empowerment grows within the collectivity of the whole class. Feminist literature on consciousness-raising (Reinharz 1983) has debated the understanding of empowerment as political and collective, not just 72

Empowering Students Through Feminist Pedagogy

instrumental and individualistic (Reinelt 1994, 688). Student empowerment increases as a sense of community develops, where we can think of "community as a place, community as relationships, and community as collective political force" (Chavis and Wandersman 1990, 56). Another concern of feminist pedagogy is to encourage reflection by students and teachers on ways to change oppressive practices within and outside of the classroom. Manicom (1992) suggests that the central question for those practising feminist pedagogy is, "Is what I am doing as teacher enhancing our capacity for transformative practice? In my particular circumstances, what kind of teaching and learning has the most potential to develop a collective capacity to engage in transformative feminist practice?" (383) These questions have relevance beyond teaching, for example, in such fields as research, writing, interpreting, mediation and administration.

Notes This article is based in part on a paper originally presented at the Canadian Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, May 6,1994, for "Women's Work in Canadian Anthropology." I would like to thank Mane Arratia and Shelly Romalis for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper. 1. Hoodfar (1992) writes as a minority teacher in the classroom: "My acknowledging the inequalities in power relations between students and teachers is seen not as an attempt to point out institutionalized inequalities but as my not being confident as a teacher or as compensation for my lack of knowledge. In making room for dialogue, I am seen not as a liberal teacher experimenting with or advocating a different pedagogy, but as someone lacking experience in controlling a class, or worse yet, as someone too lazy to deliver more conventional lectures" (311-12). 2. Several reflective studies discuss how the feminist classroom can operate to oppress students. Hillyer Davis (1995) and Weiler (1988) have looked at how their classrooms privileged feminist perspectives over other voices. 3. Ways in which teachers and students can begin such negotiation are examined in the article by Martindale, Shea and Major (1992).

73

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

References Alcoff, Linda. 1988. Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 13: 405-36. Chavis, David M. and Abraham Wandersman. 1990. Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology \$>\ 55-81. Currie, Dawn H. 1992. Subject-ivity in the classroom: Feminism meets academe. Canadian Journal of Education 17: 341-64. Haraway, Donna. 1992. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14: 575-99. Hillyer Davis, B. 1995. Teaching the feminist minority. In Gender subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching^ M. Culley and C. Portuges (eds.), 245-52. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hoodfar, Homa. 1992. Feminist anthropology and critical pedagogy: The anthropology of classrooms' excluded voices. Canadian Journal of Education 17: 303-20. Maher, Frances A. and Mary Kay Tetreault. 1993. Frames of positionality: Constructing meaningful dialogues about gender and race. Anthropological Quarterly66: 118-26. Manicom, Ann. 1992. Feminist pedagogy: Transformations, standpoints and politics. Canadian Journal of Education 17: 365-89. Martindale, K., S. Shea and L. Major. 1992. Articulating the difficulties in teaching/learning feminist cultural theory. Radical Teacher-39: 9-14. Reinelt, Claire. 1994. Fostering empowerment, building community: The challenge for state-funded feminist organizations. Human Relations 47: 685-705. Reinharz, Shulamit. 1983. Feminist research methodology groups: Origins, forms, functions. In Feminist revisions: What has been and might be, V. Patraka and L. Tilly (eds.), 197-228. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Riger, Stephanie. 1993. What's wrong with empowerment? AmericanJournal of Community Psychology 2\\ 279-92. Shor, Ira. 1987. A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley: Bergin & Garvey. Weiler, K. 1988. Women teaching for change: Gender, class and power. South Hadley: Bergin & Garvey.

Other Recommended Reading Women's Studies Quarterly 2\ (fall/winter 1993). This issue is devoted to the theme of feminist pedagogy. Belenky, Mary Field etal. 1986. Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books. Briskin, Linda. 1990. Feminist pedagogy: Teaching and learning liberation. Toronto: Division of Social Science, York University. and Rebecca Priegert Coulter. 1992. Feminist pedagogy: Challenging the normative. Canadian Journal of Education 17: 247-63. Cully, M. and C. Portuges (eds.), 1985. Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Gabriel, Ayala H. 1989. Politics, ideology, and scholarship: Teaching anthropology in women's studies. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 18: 111-20. Lather, Patti. 1991. Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall. Luke, Carmen and Jennifer Gore. 1992. Feminist and criticalpedagogy. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall. MacDermid, Shelley M. et al. 1992. Feminist teaching: Effective education. Family Relations 41: 31-38. Morgen, Sandra. 1990. Challenging the politics of exclusion. Education and Urban Society'22: 393-401.

74

Heterosexism in the Classroom Leslie Green

Heterosexism is to sexual diversity what racism is to ethnic diversity. Whether rooted in hatred, fear or ignorance, whether overt or covert, heterosexism devalues the lives of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people. Unlawful discrimination, violence, harassment, etc., raise serious issues beyond the scope of this article, though, sadly, not always beyond the experience of our students. Here, however, I want to consider how instructors might satisfy more than just our legal obligations to ensure that the classroom is a secure learning environment for all, one that respects diversity while allowing for vigorous debate.

Invisibility and Stigma Owing to their authority, instructors must take some responsibility for the climate in the classroom. Obviously, we must ensure that our own behaviour does not poison the atmosphere, but —and this more difficult —we must not allow the behaviour of others to do so either. It is always a delicate matter knowing when, and how, to exercise control. Heterosexism is easier to avert than to stop, but this can be trickier than averting sexism or racism. The experience of gay students differs not only from that of the majority, but even from that of other minorities, for they are not only stigmatized but are also largely invisible. The stigma is evident: homosexuality provokes in many people feelings of disgust and more general anxieties about sex. Yet for gay people, sexuality plays the same roles that it does for straight people. To be hated, discriminated against or ridiculed on the grounds of one's capacity for love can be profoundly injurious. Consequently, many gay people keep their orientation secret, at least to some degree. This is particularly easy in a large, commuter university in which students' social lives are often conducted away from campus. But while invisibility might afford some individuals protection against direct homophobia, it brings costs of its own and reinforces the view that gay people don't exist. 75

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Two other things can distinguish the situation of gay students. The university years are often their first opportunity to come to terms with their identity, to explore romance and so on. And second, because their parents are usually straight, gay students might at the same time experience considerable stress with their families of origin. While members of some other minorities can hope for family support in coping with the stigma of racial or cultural difference, gay students often have to construct their own support networks. The combination of stigma and invisibility has important consequences that instructors need to understand. For one thing, the natural inhibition that even the prejudiced feel about ignoring or insulting marginalized groups in their presence is here considerably attenuated. For example, people who would never make racist remarks in front of Asian students feel free to say the most astonishing things in the (unrecognized) presence of gay students or colleagues. And gay students can be less apt to defend their own interests when that involves being open about their orientation, a step the costs of which they might not yet be able to bear. The following suggestions, then, are derived from my own experience in confronting such issues in teaching a large, undergraduate course about sexuality. Though they are summarized as a handful of "rules," each obviously admits of exceptions and can be applied only with common sense. 1. Assume nothing. Do not teach as if you are in the presence of thirty or three hundred straight people. You are not. Between 5 and 10 per cent of your students are not straight; about one in four has a gay family member. After all, if you are a Christian you would hardly operate on the assumption that all your students are, too. The same principle operates here. 2. Respect the power of language. Our first concern is the matter of content. Plainly, one must avoid overtly homophobic terms such as "fag" and "dyke"; gay people might use these words with each other, but unless you are gay, you should not. Also avoid near-homophobic remarks that stigmatize effeminacy in men or masculinity in women. And where possible, use neutral terms such as "partner" instead of husband and wife, etc. There is, however, no generally accepted term that covers lesbians, gay men and bisexual people. "Homosexuals" is widely regarded as offensive and dated, suggesting as it does a discredited medical model of sexual diversity. "Queer" has some currency among the young and radical, but can sound odd coming from the middle-aged and tenured; nor is it fully purged of its stigma. Many women think that "gays" emphasizes the male experience. Some bisexual people identify as gay, others do not. So there is no easy solution. Perhaps it is best to avoid general categories when you can, and when you can't, try "gay people." With individuals, ordinary courtesy should govern, as it would with proper names: if Margaret says, "Call me Peggy," you should; if she says "Call me Margaret," you should not call her Peggy. Likewise, if she prefers "lesbian"

76

Heterosexism in the Classroom to "gay," use it. Under no circumstances insist on a label you think scientifically accurate or politically correct if to do so causes offense. Second, there is a matter of style or tone. You and your students are entitled to hold, discuss or defend any scientific, moral, aesthetic or religious views about sexuality. In some courses, these views will themselves be the objects of critical discussion. But it is crucial to be able to pursue such discussion in a way that does not seek to undermine the self-esteem of others and does not cross the line from discussion into the realm of preaching, harassing or insulting. This line, however, is admittedly fuzzy, and its location is itself a matter open to discussion. My suggestion (it is nothing more) is that straight people should assume the line is a bit nearer than they are inclined to believe, and thus err on the side of sensitivity to others, while gay people would assume it is a little further than they are inclined to believe, and thus enter discussions with a presumption of their colleagues' good faith. The best way to set the tone in class is by example. If, however, it becomes necessary to correct students in these matters, it should be done, in the first instance, privately. Young straight men, in particular, often feel a need to perform in class in ways that reinforce their gender identity. Homophobic remarks and attitudes are common in male adolescence (when "fag" is just a generalized term of abuse) but tend to moderate as young men become more comfortable in their own gender role and more secure about their own sexuality. But a public upbraiding never hastens this process if it is already delayed. 3. Review your discipline. Consider whether your own subject allows for a greater attention to the interests and concerns of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Obviously the possibilities are greater in a course on "Sociology of the Family" than in "Quantified Modal Logic." But in practically every subject there have been important gay writers. Acknowledging that the philosopher Wittgenstein, poet Elizabeth Bishop, composer Benjamin Britten, writer Virginia Woolf, economist Maynard Keynes or mathematician Alan Turing were none of them straight can help break a powerful and imposed silence. There is often less need to enlarge the canon than there is to "out" it. As Eve Sedgwick (1990) writes, "not only have there been a gay Socrates, Shakespeare, and Proust, but.. .their names are Socrates, Shakespeare, and Proust" (52). Make that clear without making it an issue. 4. Be out. If you are lesbian, gay or bisexual, be out on campus to the extent that it is safe for you to do so. If you are straight, try not to be ostentatious about it, and if you are mistaken for gay don't be offended. This is harder than it sounds; merely acknowledging the existence of gay people, let alone defending them, leaves any instructor open to speculation about his or her own orientation, and could well attract hostility. 5.

Do not out students or colleagues. No exceptions are allowed in the case of students, in view of the power relationship involved. They are entitled to their privacy and it is easy to underestimate the risks to which one exposes them in announcing

77

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

their orientation. That, too, is the best general policy with respect to colleagues (though here I am inclined to acknowledge an exception in self-defence: a closeted gay homophobe who is also in a position of power should not be allowed to persecute others from behind the closet door). In general, gossipiness reinforces stigma, so don't give in to it. When asked by others whether so-and-so is gay the best response is, £ capacity and students can routinely wait two weeks or more for an appointment. 3. Some campuses provide a drop-in tutoring service. Students do not need to book these appointments in advance; they simply drop by the writing centre and visit a tutor from a rotating roster for brief quarter-hour appointments. In cases where your students have specific, manageable problems, you could suggest a drop-in appointment. 4. Some writing centres offer mini-courses, usually one to four sessions each, on specific skills such as developing an argument, proper referencing or structuring a sentence. Contact your campus writing centre for a full listing of courses to publicize in your class. I would like to make it clear that most writing centres do not offer remedial services; they work with students at all skill levels. Anyone can improve their writing; I am certain that most of you reading this have highly developed writing skills yet routinely share your own writing with a trusted friend or colleague before you finalize it. We need to help our students learn that there is no stigma attached to visiting a writing centre.

Teaching Assistants and Writing Centres 1. You could request that an instructor from your writing centre come into your class and offer either a general session on improving essays or a specific discussion of how to approach the next assignment in your class.

293

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

2. Instructors can divide their classes into small groups and arrange to have each of these groups regularly visit a writing tutor to discuss class assignments, as part of the course requirements.2 Under the present constraints, this is a practical and effective use of teaching resources. 3. You could attend any mini-courses that are offered to learn how writing instructors tackle the teaching of particular skills. 4. Many centres have amassed a considerable library of books and articles that address teaching writing, from current pedagogical theory to practical how-tos. Check out what is available there and in the campus library. 5. Take advantage of any professional development your campus has to offer. Even senior tutors can benefit immensely from sharing ideas. Many graduate programs are offering more training in teaching —a necessity in an increasingly competitive job market - and it is time well spent. As classes grow larger and resources more stretched, our students will need us more than ever, while perversely, we will have less time to share with each of them. As tutors we must be committed to teaching students writing skills and we must work to find creative ways to fulfil this commitment in difficult times. This is a revised version of an article that originally appeared in March 1995 in Core 5 (2): 8,

11.

Notes Thanks to Susan Cohen at the Faculty of Arts Centre for Academic Writing for her comments on the original article. Many of these suggestions grow from the ideas of colleagues at York, particularly those in the Centre for Academic Writing. 1. See the article by James Brown, "Sequencing Assignments," in Section VII, Part 2. 2. For an example of how this works see Jan Rehner's "An Experiment in Writing and Learning Groups" earlier in this section.

294

What Happens After You Say, "Please Go to the Writing Centre"? Jan Rehner

Many of my colleagues outside the York University Faculty of Arts Centre for Academic Writing sometimes confess that they have no clear image of what happens once their students enrol for one-on-one writing instruction. How, they ask, does one-on-one teaching differ from the individual conferences they often hold with students during office hours? Why, they wonder, do some students already enroled at the centre still hand in flawed assignments, and how can course directors and writing instructors work together to help students articulate their ideas in clear and persuasive ways? Perhaps context is the most significant difference between one-on-one tutoring sessions and the individual conferences that many faculty have with students in their discipline courses. While instructors and students in the latter instance share a frame of reference grounded in the content of a particular course, the context of the writing instructor is grounded in the writing process as it applies to all of the student's courses. For example, while students in my own courses will often use office hours to ask me to clarify a particular assignment or read an initial thesis, their questions are invariably focused on how to express the content of the single course we share and on determining what I will be looking for when I evaluate their papers. At the Centre for Academic Writing, however, I am very seldom dealing with my own assignments and I am not likely to be grading the final essay produced. Thus students can be much freer in expressing their concerns about writing for a particular course (or instructor), about the differences between writing a history paper and an English paper and about the individualized process they actually engage in when they write. The foregrounding of the writing process is also, I think, vital to the special context provided by one-on-one tutoring. Students who come to me at the centre expect me to be an expert in writing; they do not necessarily expect me to be an expert in sociology or philosophy or geography. In other words, I can help the student learn 295

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM strategies for generating ideas, for developing their ideas in analytical ways and for communicating their ideas clearly, but the student is essentially the "expert" in terms of content. This shift in status can be extremely empowering for students, but while it happens often and almost necessarily in one-on-one tutoring, it seldom happens during individual conferences with students in my own course. I teach the course; I grade their papers. No matter how earnestly I try to empower them, to convince them that I know the content of the course but not their interpretations of it, that structural reality of grading their papers remains. It is also much more difficult to foreground process when I am dealing with students in my own course because they know that I know what might be missing in terms of content. So if one of those students brings me a draft and I suggest that the thesis is not clear, the student is often in some doubt as to what that suggestion might mean. Is this a writing problem or a content problem? Do I have problems with how the thesis is phrased or with the argument of the thesis? We all know, of course, how closely form and content overlap, but I find myself inevitably teaching content when I have conferences with the students in my course. At the writing centre, the student and I still talk about what the student wants to write, but how to write it, discover it or organize it takes precedence more easily because I am not perceived by the student as having a dual and potentially confusing role. In other words, my responsibility, clearly seen by both participants, is to teach a range of writing, reading and thinking strategies that will help the student not only with the assignment at hand but also with future assignments and assignments in other courses and disciplines. At the Centre for Academic Writing, I need to diagnose the particular process in which a student engages when she or he writes, make that process, with its strengths and weaknesses, explicit to the student, and determine with the student a set of writing priorities and strategies that will help her or him gain more control over, or at least comfort with, that process as it is applied to a range of academic disciplines over a period of time. It would be nice if the writing process were simple or if every student wrote the same way or if every discipline had the same methodology. Then I could be relatively assured that the advice I give to students writing assignments in my own discipline course could be generalized to their other courses. Since none of this is so, one-on-one instruction tailors writing priorities and problem-solving strategies to individual student needs. This strikes me as a very different teaching task than giving the same general advice about, say, developing a thesis to large numbers of students. What works for one student might not work for another; there are just too many kinds of theses and too many styles for developing one. To help students write clearly and critically in the short time allowed amid all their assignments in all their courses during an academic year, I have to know what strategies they are already using, what is working and what is not working in the writing process, what strategies might need to be learned or altered, which strategies can be transferred

296

What Happens After You Say, "Please Go to the Writing Centre"?

across disciplines, and whether the student understands differences in methodology across disciplines. If I am doing my job and all of this exciting stuff is being communicated, how is it that students enroled at the centre might still be submitting flawed papers to their course instructors? Well, first, and most obviously, it takes time to master the complexities of the writing process. There are no quick fixes. Second, in our teaching at the centre, my colleagues and I usually give priority to high-level thinking tasks such as analysis and organization before discussing patterns of error at the sentence level. For this reason, grammar is usually not a central concern until an individual has satisfactorily completed the larger tasks of an assignment. It would be easy for us to edit such essays but then we would not be teaching students how to write independently nor would we be ensuring that the ownership of the paper remains with the student. Further, in setting writing priorities, it would be irresponsible of me to spend an hour teaching subject - verb agreement if the larger problem experienced by the student was failure to understand the assignment or an inability to develop an argument. The key point here is not to assume that a student's writing is not improving on the evidence of a single paper. It could well be that the essay you are asked to grade, however flawed, is still much better than the first draft seen by the writing instructor. Finally, remember that students write to learn even though it sometimes seems that they write only so we can measure learning. Students write economics papers to learn how to think like an economist, or philosophy papers to learn about how philosophy works. Course directors and writing instructors are partners in this learning process, each with a particular expertise. Our intentions and our pedagogy should be as clear as possible to each other and to the students. So if you really want to know what happens after you send your students to the writing centre, feel free to drop by, meet some of the instructors and perhaps arrange to observe a few tutoring sessions.

297

Part Three: Grading and Evaluation

Evaluating Student Writing: Problems and Possibilities Tom Greenwald

For many of us, evaluating our students' writing is a necessary but often frustrating task. Given the time and energy that we spend commenting on our students' essays, it is understandable that we feel the reward should be greater, that our students should pay more attention to our advice than many seem to do. After all, it is in their own best interests to become better, more effective writers. However, the next batch of essays provides fresh evidence that many of our students possess a virtual immunity to our evaluation of their work. Their writing improves, at best, only marginally.

Some Research Findings Nancy Sommers (1982), in her article "Responding to Student Writing," investigates why students so frequently fail to heed the advice provided in evaluations of their writing. Her conclusion is disturbing. The fault, she suggests, is not so much a lack of diligence on the part of our students, but a problem with the kind of commentary teachers provide. After reviewing hundreds of essay evaluations, Sommers asserts that there are two primary reasons why students often ignore their teachers' advice: first, teachers display a strong tendency to appropriate their students' text, an action that students perceive as essentially hostile. As well, the comments that teachers make are most often general and not specific to the text, reinforcing the students' sense that the teacher is only interested in correcting the text, not reading it. In appropriating the student's text, the teacher often sends the message, "Make the changes I want, or else." Because teachers often primarily identify errors in usage, diction and style, the student is left with the strong impression that these sentence-level errors take precedence over the meaning of the text and what the student is attempting to say. As a result, the student comes to see revision as "fixing" mistakes that the teacher has marked, rather than as a process of rethinking, reordering and rewriting the ideas contained in the text. Second, Sommers notes that most teachers' comments are not specific to the text and, in fact, can be interchanged or simply rubber-stamped from one text to another. 298

Evaluating Student Writing

Concerning teachers who write in generalities or provide only abstract commands, she states that This uniform code of commands, requests and pleadings demonstrates that the teacher holds a license for vagueness while the student is commanded to be specific.. .The problem presented by these vague commands is compounded for the students when they are not offered any strategies for carrying out these commands (153). She later concludes that too frequently "teachers do not respond to student writing with the kind of thoughtful commentary which will help students to engage with the issues they are writing about or which will help them think about their purpose and goals in writing a specific text" (154).

Applying the Research If Sommers is correct, faculty need to change their methods of evaluating student writing, something much easier said than done. As an instructor at the York University Faculty of Arts Centre for Academic Writing and as the critical skills coordinator for York's Vanier College, I have discussed the evaluation of student writing with many dedicated teachers, and I think we all would agree that changing one's approach to evaluation is a long-term and, on occasion, exasperating process. Sometimes this exasperation is the by-product of a particular approach. For instance, many teachers diligently try to catch every error or mistake in their students' essays. This approach takes a great deal of time, not to mention patience, and usually results in the student feeling utterly overwhelmed by the spectre of all that red ink. Instructors usually realize the limitations of such an approach, but are often uncertain about changing their method. One way of beginning to alter the "correct mistakes" approach is for the teacher to avoid holding a pen or pencil when reading the essay the first time. With pen in hand, people have a strong tendency to point out each error as it arises, an activity that is guaranteed to distract the reader's attention from whatever "flow" the essay might have. Without a pen, the teacher is more likely to read the essay, to focus on what the student is saying or attempting to say. The result is that the evaluation eventually focuses less on correcting errors and more on those aspects of the essay that interfere with or enhance the reader's understanding of the writer's ideas. When the instructor assumes the role of interested (or confused) reader, the student might well begin to see imperfections in the essay in a different context. The advice the evaluator provides takes on the tone of "help me better understand this idea" rather than "fix this mistake." While their methods differ, the most effective evaluators approach their students' essays with the same respect they show a colleague in their department whose paper they have been asked to critique. Their comments on student essays tend to be substantive, emphasizing strengths as well as weaknesses. They avoid comments such as "You should know better than to try to get away with this," which students perceive 299

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

as personal attacks. While these evaluators might draw the writer's attention to a variety of weaknesses, they prioritize their concerns so students can grasp which aspects of their writing require the most urgent attention.

Creating a Grading Checklist To emphasize their priorities as evaluators, some instructors create a formal checklist of concerns. The checklist places in order of importance the criteria upon which the work is judged so that the students see that a clearly stated thesis, a persuasive argument and an appropriate pattern of organization carry more weight in determining the teacher's response to the essays than, say, spelling errors, a category that might be included near the bottom of the checklist. Such errors are not neglected, but their importance is not overly emphasized either. Once a checklist is constructed, a copy can be returned to students after the instructor has completed the evaluation of the essay. The teacher provides a response to each item of the checklist, but reserves detailed commentary for the areas of most significant concern or praise. Some instructors have stopped writing on their student's essays entirely. These instructors restrict their comments to a separate sheet of paper, which they later staple or clip to the essay. This approach shows respect for the students' ownership of their texts. It also necessitates that the instructor explain the comments and suggestions in more detail, providing the student with clearer explanations and more specific examples than are usually given when the teacher is writing in the margin of a page. This format allows teachers the space to discuss strategies that students can use to improve their subsequent drafts or essays. By emphasizing useful writing strategies, the teacher helps students who might recognize the same weaknesses in their writing that are so obvious to their instructors, but who have little notion of what they need to do to eliminate or reduce the problem.

Intervening in the Writing Process Perhaps the most certain way to ensure that students take seriously the evaluations of their writing is for the instructor to comment on the first draft. When students have the opportunity to improve the grade of the essay, they pay much greater attention to their instructor's comments than when the grade is already a fait accompli. By intervening in the student's first draft, teachers emphasize writing as a process of gradual discovery, revaluation and change. This conception about writing is foreign to most students, who struggle to get it "right" the first time. However, many instructors feel that they do not have time to comment on first drafts. These teachers might consider requiring students to hand in "prewriting guides" before their first drafts. Such guides ask students to respond to specific questions related to their writing process before they start their first drafts. Here are some typical questions that often appear on prewriting guides: What are the subject and purpose of your essay? What is your working hypothesis? What kinds of information do you need and what sources will you use? 300

Evaluating Student Writing Are there any key terms that need to be defined? Do you recognize any biases in your thinking? The students respond to the questions in writing. If problems in a student's approach to the assignment are revealed, these problems can be addressed while the student is still in a position to make changes that will improve the essay. As well, when such guides are required, students often begin working on their writing assignments sooner, with the result that they have more time later for matters of revision. Students also can profit from reading over and commenting on one another's first drafts. It must be stressed that teachers who adopt this approach must do so with a great deal of care and planning so that some students do not feel intimidated or threatened by having their work read by other students. Also, students usually need to be coached in how to provide constructive commentary. One method some instructors use is to pair students, have them trade essays and then have each student respond in writing to specific questions constructed to be as informative but non-threatening as possible. For argumentative essays, these questions might be: What is the thesis of the essay and where is it located? What did you like most about the essay? Explain. Where did you need more information? Explain. Each student reads his or her partner's first draft, writes a response to the questions and gives the response to the partner. If class time is made available, they can discuss one another's critique. Students then use the responses of their partners to help them determine what they need to revise in the next draft. As well, many students find that constructively evaluating someone else's writing makes it easier for them to examine their own writing from a more detached perspective.

Audience Considerations A hugely important variable in essay evaluation is the essay assignment itself. Vague assignments contribute massively to a student's writing difficulties. As faculty, when we write articles, we usually start with a clear sense of the task at hand, with knowledge of our audience's needs and expectations, and with a fairly accurate notion of the criteria upon which our audience will judge our work. We write "across" to peers and sometimes "down" to novices. How often do we write "up" to an audience who, we perceive, knows more than we can ever hope to learn? Yet we often provide our students with little help in dealing with any of these crucial considerations. Essay assignments that provide students with a clearly defined task, a specific audience, and the criteria upon which the essay will be evaluated not only help nurture effective writing, but in fact make such writing possible. For instance, confusion concerning the audience's needs can lead to incomprehensible prose. Students fail to explain sufficiently an idea because they assume that their audience, the teacher, is a godlike figure who knows everything already and can thus make sense of even the most incoherent abstractions. Yet when these same students are asked to write to an

301

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

audience of peers, the need for greater explanation and clarification might appear much more obvious. The "audience" for student essays can take many imaginative forms if the instructor decides to set up the assignment in such a manner. For instance, the audience could be other students in the class, a stranger looking for something to read in a dentist's office, students attending a conference on a particular topic, a historical figure, a government official, a favourite aunt, the author of a text that the student is required to read, and so on, depending upon the instructor's goals. Expert writers often create a mental picture of their audience and use that conception to help guide the choices that they make when they write. Novice writers usually possess no such strategy and require help developing one.

Making Evaluation Criteria Explicit Assignments that contain explicit statements of the criteria that the teacher will use to judge the essay promote effective writing. If students understand that the teacher highly values, say, a clear statement of thesis in the introduction and the use of specific examples to support generalizations, they can employ this knowledge in organizing their essays and planning their revisions. We teachers can benefit from this approach, too. In explicitly formulating our central criteria of evaluation, we can clarify for ourselves just what it is that we value most in writing, a process that could help us reconstitute our own goals and expectations. When it is practical to do so, instructors might consider asking students to assist in formulating the criteria upon which their essays will be judged. When students participate in designing the terms of evaluation, they might well accept greater responsibility for meeting the demands of the assignment. Very few university-level instructors ever receive any training in how to evaluate student writing. Yet our evaluations represent one of our most important tasks as teachers. In considering our approach to evaluation, it is important that we explore all of the factors that influence the quality of the writing we will receive. We have more control over these variables than we sometimes realize. A final point: While many of us are reluctant to adopt the role of "writing teacher" when we evaluate our students' writing, we all have acquired a great deal of knowledge about what constitutes effective writing in our own fields. The task of evaluating our students' writing provides us with an opportunity to stress the role and significance of writing in our disciplines and to promote our students' ability to use writing as a means of discovery and analysis. Our students need this ability if they are to participate actively and productively in the construction of knowledge within our disciplines.

References Sommers, Nancy. 1982. Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication?)?* (May): 153. 302

Fast, Fair and Constructive: Grading in the Mathematical Sciences Alan Yoshioka

Fast and Fair Marking is not mechanical work, unless the format of the assignment is multiple choice. You do need to exercise good judgement. Even in mathematics, there are usually several ways to solve a problem and there could be more than one correct answer. In one workshop I conducted, I asked teaching assistants to mark several sample solutions to a test. Different teaching assistants gave very different grades for identical answers and they all had good reasons for doing so. There is no absolute standard for which you must aim, but there are strategies you can use that will enable you to be fair to each student and consistent in your expectations, and that will save you time in the process. As with many tasks, you will likely spend much of your time making a few hard decisions and speed through the routine areas. I often take less than fifteen seconds to verify that a half-page solution has all the key points, whereas I might spend five minutes on a solution that uses an alternative method or reveals a conceptual misunderstanding. You can save time and be more consistent by reducing the number of times you have to make tough decisions. The biggest time waster is having to go back and change the grade on something you've already marked. Also, the student might perceive you to be unfair if you scratch out one grade and substitute a lower one. The most important way to save time and improve fairness is to mark all the answers to a single problem at the same time. I cannot emphasize this point enough. If you mark the whole assignment, one student at a time, there is far too much for you to remember by the time you get to the last few papers, so you will take longer and your grades might not be consistent. As you get tired or hurried at the end of your marking period, you could get increasingly irritable and mark harder, or become more lenient because you can no longer be bothered to watch for every little error. It does not matter very much if one problem is marked harder than another, but it is not fair to mark an arbitrary group of students harder than the rest. 303

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Before grading the students' solutions to a particular problem, work completely through the problem yourself. This is important even when you are grading for another instructor who has provided a sample solution, because it will help you identify potential areas of difficulty. Complete the marking for each problem at a single sitting. This uses your short-term memory efficiently; your decisions will be fresh in your mind while you are marking, and then you will be done with them. Keep a scratch-pad record of your precedents for allocating and deducting marks. The next student who gives the same answer can be assigned the same mark almost automatically. Once you are ready to begin reading through the solutions to a particular problem, it helps to first subdivide them by making a quick pass through the entire stack, sorting them on the basis of similarity of approach, and from best to worst. I call this "grading sideways." Begin with the best solutions for, as Graff (n.d.) writes, this saves the problem decisions until last, when I've gotten thoroughly familiar with all the possible mistakes the student can make. If you use sequential grading, Murphy's Law will ensure that the first paper you pick will be done in some weird manner, and you'll lose a lot of time trying to determine whether or not it was a valid method (n.p.). Grading sideways avoids having to look back through the stack to change grades and is a big time saver. My final suggestion is to reduce the number of decisions you have to make by limiting the possible outcomes; one way I do this is by marking each question out of five instead of ten. In the long run, provided you are consistent, the difference between seven and eight out of ten marks on one question on one assignment isn't worth the time and the agony it takes to make the distinction.

Making Criticism Constructive Almost invariably, people who are fearful about mathematics or science have become so because of negative experiences they've had with the subject. You can ease their discomfort by encouraging your students in many ways. 1. Though you should not be afraid to point out errors, do look for something positive and give it a check mark, especially in a very poor answer. 2. Be specific about what's wrong. A big red X is generally not helpful to the student unless the error is an obvious computational one. Try to pinpoint where the student went wrong and check mark the last correct step. If you know there is an error but can't figure out where it is, say so. 3. Protect students' privacy by writing their overall assignment grade on an inside page. 4. Be concrete. If a student is confused about a concept, it is more helpful to give a concrete analogy than, for instance, to state the rule or theorem that has been violated. So, for example, suppose a student writes: 304

Fast, Fair and Constructive

One response might be to insert the correct algebraic relationship, but a more helpful and thought-provoking response for the student might be to ask whether it is also true that 5. Consider adopting an additive marking scheme. Do you tend to grant points for correct steps, or deduct points for errors? The deduction approach — which I still use to some degree — creates an incentive for students to gloss over tricky points. The additive approach, on the other hand, encourages students to show all their thinking and allows you to identify and clarify their points of confusion. This can be a positive learning experience for the students, but it will not happen if they are deliberately vague or sketchy to avoid having marks deducted. 6. Grant partial credit. Many students who do not know the complete answer to a question will freeze and leave it blank. They often underestimate how much they understand about the problem and say they don't know where to start. The only thing they learn from that experience is helplessness. When a student leaves a question blank, I give them zero, but remind them that I give at least one point for any honest attempt, even if it is way off. Since I mark most questions out of five points, there is a fair incentive for them to try to get started.

References Graff, William, n.d. Fast, equitable grading. Longview, TX: Le Tourneau College.

305

An Individualized Approach to Teaching and Evaluation Gary Bunch

It is seldom that professors have the opportunity to reflect on the nature, organization and intent of their teaching. We often are too close to the task of teaching to see the "me" behind it. In this short reflection on my teaching I attempt to step back and see the "me" in what I do. I relate my beliefs about the teacher — learner relationship, examine the various roles I play as a teacher and probe the practical meanings of my view of teaching. In this last regard I focus on the evaluative process in teaching. I show why and how I try to include my students in that process and provide information on how they have responded to the way I structure and evaluate my courses. Before beginning, I should briefly describe the context in which my teaching has been formed. My early career was as a teacher of deaf students at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels. When I moved to the university I focused my teaching, research and writing on people with exceptionalities, those to whom learning does not come easily. I believe that much of what I do now is a result of working for years with those who challenged my teaching skills. My past has left indelible marks on my approach to teaching, marks that lead me to agree with Joubert that "to teach is to learn twice." Let me now reflect on what it is that I have learned twice.

The Teacher-Learner Relationship I have learned that I do not agree with traditional perceptions of the professor or teacher as the repository of knowledge and of the student as a passive recipient, memorizer, manipulator and regurgitator of knowledge. These perceptions arise from the traditional, or transmission, model of education in which knowledge is controlled by, and doled out by, the teacher. With the current knowledge explosion, the advent of personal computers, the changes in our understanding of human development, the acknowledgement that learning is an individual act, and the recognition that learning is most effective when the individual accepts responsibility for personal learning, the 306

An Individualized Approach to Teaching and Evaluation industrial age transmission model of instruction and learning is no longer acceptable. It simply does not work effectively across the wide range of learners at our universities. What can replace it? I claim no overriding vision of a new model for the teacherlearner relationship. I know, however, what I am attempting to do as a teacher as I struggle to increase the effectiveness of student learning through the courses I design and offer. It is, in truth, a struggle for me since I initially studied teaching under the transmission model, am experienced in it and cannot reject it fully or with ease. To a considerable degree it has played a role in leading me to where I am as a teacher. In fact, if I were to reject it completely, I would be guilty of over-reaction and of throwing out the baby with the bath water. The best I can do is acknowledge that I am a product of certain formative experiences, accept the need to move forward in my teaching and attempt to understand the changing principles and understandings that guide my teaching. Of particular concern in the last regard are my views concerning how the roles of teacher and learner evolve over the duration of a course.

The Framesetter I consider my role as teacher in any class to change as the course proceeds because the learner changes as the course proceeds. Initially, I work as a framesetter, an individual who lays out the general parameters of subject theory and content. In this capacity I develop certain themes of thought, knowledge and action as I understand them in the field under consideration. In many ways I take a traditional role as transmitter of information to students and attempt to establish a basic familiarity in them with the knowledge base of the area of study. Transmission takes place through lecture, assignment of selected readings, guest speaker presentations, audio/visual resources and discussions. All are aimed at establishing an initial shared base of theory and fact for the two partners in the learning process, the students and the professor. It is necessary to have this shared background so that the partnership has a mutual base from which to function. Simultaneously, I overtly introduce and attempt to model the notion that learning is a collegial activity with both parties in the process having certain responsibilities. The primary role of the professor is leading the student to awareness of the area of study and fundamental aspects of that area. The primary role of the student is to become familiar with these fundamentals in order to move forward in understanding. I find that most of my students interpret this difference in roles to mean that the professor talks and they listen. They do not regard'learning as a collegial, interactive process. If my concept of education as interaction between colleagues, albeit colleagues with differing roles, is to be actualized, I must order my teaching to lead students to value and desire incisive interaction.

The Guide Colleague To stimulate interaction I gradually withdraw from the role of purveyor of information to that of a person who, while familiar with existing understandings of a subject area, never ceases examining those understandings in critical-analytical fashion. I attempt 307

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM to become a guide colleague, one who draws attention to new and different parts of the field in which the student is engaged. I strive to make students realize that not all that is known about an area of study is set in stone and that one of their first tasks is to question knowledge. Students often are somewhere between hesitant and loathe to query what a professor or a book says, but I believe that education cannot proceed unless we critically analyze that which we are learning. To initiate this questioning stance I emphasize problematic aspects of theory and fact. Discussion and debate, minority points of view and the relationship of theory to practice form the basis of class meetings. A quite specific effort is made to create sets of teacher-student, student-teacher and student-student interactions that probe what we believe to be the corpus of knowledge of the area under consideration. During this phase I find that definite movement away from reliance on transmission of information from one person to another occurs, though the professor continues to function didactically on occasions when the direction of discussion or debate requires the insertion of specific information. Such occasions occur routinely when discussion evokes alternative, minority interpretations of existing theory or fact, or when the opportunity arises to extend background and detail of accepted theory or fact. A shift has been made, however, in the role of the professor from directly transmitting knowledge to stimulating and guiding learning indirectly. At the same time the role of the student has begun to evolve towards co-setting the direction and content of learning and, as we will see, taking responsibility for evaluation. The professor continues to take the lead role in the teaching-learning process but at a much-muted level in comparison to the framesetter stage. The student is moving to the fore in terms of increased familiarity with basic theory and fact, confidence in aspects of the area of study and curiosity to know and understand more.

The Mentor Colleague Finally, I combine the guide function with that of a mentor colleague, among whose responsibilities is that of responding to and commenting on the student colleague's ability to demonstrate his or her developing control of course content. Prosaically, we refer to this as grading assignments. But it is more than the term would suggest. Students take the lead in submitting evidence of their appreciation of theory, fact and issues. This evidence takes the form of formal papers, in-class presentations, debates, videos and other individually negotiated projects. The form of submissions can vary, but any submission must be focused on revealing a student's critical understanding of an aspect of the field under study. My role at this point is to provide feedback on the content, organization, strength of argument and other aspects of the students' work. I point to ways in which understanding might be furthered and communication of understanding to others might be strengthened. My objective is to lead students to question and strengthen their understandings of the field of study, to become familiar with relevant readings and to develop the desire to provide evidence of their understandings in acceptable,

308

An Individualized Approach to Teaching and Evaluation clear and powerful academic style. Throughout the evolutionary process described above I am guided by three key beliefs: 1. Students learn most effectively when they are treated as independent, yet collaborative, learners who participate in making decisions regarding how and what they will study. 2. Learning is enhanced if high standards are set by both the professor and the learners for developing a critical appreciation of the course material. 3. Learners should be permitted and encouraged to demonstrate the strength of their critical appreciation in ways best aligned with their individual learning styles.

Evaluation All this leads to evaluation, the assessment of demonstrated learning. As I prepare for each course, I lay out in the course outline a series of assignments that I have found will permit students to engage major portions of the theoretical and factual bases of the course. For each I note a percentage value and a due date. Some assignments lead to a minor paper, some to an in-class presentation and others to a major paper. (Collaboration on papers and presentations is permitted.) The option of taking one or more tests is included as well. Sufficient assignments are described to permit each candidate some degree of choice, while meeting all evaluation requirements. These assignments provide a framework within which students who respond best to structured situations can operate comfortably. The option is there to pursue stated assignments, with specified values, due at specified times. A number of students in each of my classes opt for this structured format for assignments. It fits well with their learning styles and permits them to plan their academic and personal timetables. Other students welcome opportunities to follow paths not quite so beaten. Such students are permitted and encouraged to design assignments that they believe will satisfy course standards and allow them to work through their personal areas of learning strength. Alternative assignments can be suggested to meet all course requirements except participation in class discussions and other in-class activities. Whereas the majority of student-designed assignments are relatively routine, students have utilized interpretive dance, videos, guest presenters and short dramas as ways of exhibiting their learning in personally meaningful ways. My guideline in this area is that no idea is too creative to receive consideration. It takes students some time to understand the possibilities opened by this guideline. To guard against misinterpretation I make clear early in each course the basic rule that all alternative projects must be discussed with me. As noted earlier, due dates are given for each instructor-designed assignment, but they are suggestions only. In an attempt to lead students to assume some control, I inform them that all assignments can be submitted at other times as dictated by their individual timetables, with the proviso that the instructor be informed in advance. Students are told as well that choosing an alternative date means that the assignment might be submitted at a time when I have planned for activities other than grading 309

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

assignments. The logical consequence is not some type of penalty but that the turnaround time and amount of feedback might not be the same as for assignments handed in on the suggested due dates. This is the tradeoff that the student accepts for flexibility in due date. Students are advised of the wisdom of creating a plan for submitting assignments over the full term of the course and of the risk of digging a pit for themselves if they delay doing and submitting assignments. I make clear that I will feel little responsibility for saving students from self-dug pits at the end of the course. Significant numbers of students elect the flexible due date option; not all handle well the responsibility for self-direction that comes with it. That, too, is part of learning. Students are advised early in each course that percentage values for structured assignments or tests are not inviolate. The option of suggesting alternative percentages is available. In cases where students suggest valuing a single assignment heavily (in my terms, at more than 40 per cent), they are advised of the associated risk and asked for a rationale. In all possible instances, the plans advanced are accepted so long as sufficient work is undertaken to demonstrate appreciation of course content. More heavily weighted assignments should not be misconstrued as opportunity to do less work. The size and value of assignments is not considered as important as the type of assignment and the thought that goes into completing it. I find that few students suggest realignment of percentage values by more than five or ten per cent, but the positive reaction that I get for this particular type of student input amazes me every year. These short discussions indicate that students can determine how they will provide evidence of their learning, that they can dictate the timing of assignment submissions and that they have some control over the value of assignments. Each of these is taken a step further by permitting students to change their minds on type of assignment, timing of submission and value up to the point of actual submission, or, in the case of tests, to the point of seeing the test questions. I believe that there should be room for second thoughts without penalty. I also believe that the most effective learning is reached through giving the student as much ownership of effort and outcome as possible. The pedantry of the traditional teacher-centred classroom model, in my view, fetters learning for a goodly number of students. Education is more about minimizing fetters around learning than arbitrary regulations and instructor convenience.

Student Misinterpretation The degree of flexibility I design into my teaching is not without its dangers. I find that a limited number of students mistake flexibility, individualization and friendliness for a lack of standards. The quality of product I demand as evidence of understanding most often dispels this notion, shocking a few students and motivating a fair number of others. Some students are weak in making effective use of their time and run into the danger of leaving too much work to the end of the course. The structured due date system helps some of these students. I kept track of the records of all students and 310

An Individualized Approach to Teaching and Evaluation frequently remind the class that some are busily digging the pits I warned them of earlier. Those who lag far behind I see individually and point out the danger they are facing. Some students ask to have the value of an assignment increased or decreased after they have received their grade. I congratulate them on their courage and creativity and say "No." Word quickly gets around that once a student has chosen a particular path, the prof will not clear a new one for him or her unless a valid reason such as illness or family misfortune creates the necessity.

Student Participation in the Evaluation Process I encourage student participation in grading in a number of ways. I give the option of peer evaluations for all presentations. In some classes the allocation of the presentation grade is divided evenly between the instructor and the peer group. In others, where the presentation value is modest, peers grade alone. In all instances those making a presentation can take part in their evaluation. My rationale is that no one else knows the learning and effort associated with a presentation as well as the presenters. I find that students approach evaluation of peers seriously and follow the grading guidelines (Figure 1) that I have designed with care. I find as well that peer evaluations and my own are closely similar, with mine a trifle less appreciative of the strength of presentations. Students are involved in determining their class participation grade as well. As instructor I am able to note such things as attendance patterns, contribution to class discussion and consultations outside of class. Only the student is aware of participation in terms of concentration during class, outside readings, discussions of class topic with others and amount of study. Blending the two views creates a wide-ranging, collegial analysis of this element of the course. This is a technique I continue to ponder. The majority of students rate their participation quite highly, and I wonder if we have a difference in standards in this area or simply a difference in viewpoints, with one side keeping a keener eye on the eventual course grade. On this point I continue to believe that the value of involving students in their evaluation and in exhibiting trust outweighs any negative aspects.

Tracking The procedures described above require careful individual tracking. To assist in this I provide an individual assignment choice form to each student (Figure 2). Students have access to these forms at each class and between classes by appointment. They are required to keep the form updated in terms of assignments chosen or contemplated, value of assignments and dates for submission. Each of these elements can be changed prior to submission to meet individual timetables, student perceptions of the quality of their work and other factors. I review the assignment choice forms weekly. My experience is that this approach to assignments requires an additional commitment of time. The additional record keeping and student consultations are rewarded by the quality of student learning.

311

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Figure 1. Presentation: Peer Evaluation Form Presenters: Grades: A+ A B+ B C+ C D+ D E F Each category may be graded or the presentation as a whole may be graded. CATEGORY

Grade

CLARITY: Clear discussion of topic. MOTIVATION/INTEREST Ability to hold audience. ORGANIZATION Parts of seminar interrelated well. CONTENT Advanced student knowledge of topic. RELEVANCE On topic. Linkage of theory and practice. RESEARCH Wide-ranging grasp of topics and resources. HAND-OUT Clear review of seminar. Valuable for future use. TOTAL GRADE

312

Comments

An Individualized Approach to Teaching and Evaluation

Figure 2. Individual Assignment Choices NAME: Structured Assignments 1. Field experience. Interview with an individual labeled with an exceptionality. Focus on societal barriers to community acceptance. Critically analyze information obtained and relate to lectures, readings, research. Due: October 30

30%

2. Field experience. Critical review of an agency offering services to individuals with a particular exceptionality. Focus on objectives of agency and ability to attain them given resources and philosophy. Obtain client views. Due: January 15

30%

3. Term paper. A formal academic paper examining a selected exceptionality. Include historical review. Focus on societal barriers and assists. Look to appropriate societal responses to barriers. Include critical analysis. Due: March 12

40%

4. Test #1. A take-home test focused on major dynamics of lectures and readings. Due: October 30

15%

5. Test #2. A take-home test focused on major dynamics of lectures and readings. Due: January 15

15%

Optional Activities 1. Student-suggested alternate assignment.

%0

2. Student-suggested alternate assignment.

%

Notes: 1. All alternate assignments must be negotiated with course director. 2. Changes to original choices must be cleared with course director. 3. One assignment must be completed in fall term. 4. Due dates are suggested only. Other hand-in times to be cleared with course director.

313

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Student Reaction All the above is premised on the assumption that the teaching-learning process is an interactive collegial undertaking that proceeds most powerfully when the learner is able to take ownership of personal learning. At the university level "learning" is a process between adults where one has teaching and evaluative responsibilities and the other has responsibility for learning and demonstration of learning. The professor is charged with provision of an environment that reaches out to individual learners in ways that encourage independence and maximize the quality of the learning experience. Additionally, in any course there are things to be experienced beyond the theory and fact of a discipline. Learning about oneself is one of them. In the courses that I teach, these three areas - theory, fact and self- form a triumvirate at the base of course design. How do the students feel? In preparation for this discussion, I asked members of one of my classes to let me know anonymously what they thought of the format of the class. The following are some of the remarks they offered. [This class] has given me the chance to excel at my own rate and has allowed me the ability to choose what I feel I am most interested in within the field of exceptionality [the course focus], therefore allowing me to concentrate my efforts on areas I enjoy. When you are given the freedom to choose an area of study, I believe the learning experience will prove more rewarding. [The class] gives students opportunity to be creative by letting them choose subjects..., giving the challenge to notice material covered in class when we are out in the community. [The] evaluation procedure allows for students to express and build on their strengths and interests. Flexibility on choices of assignments and due dates allows students to take responsibility for their own learning and permits a reasonable amount of time for research. Expectations are very high and yet this appears to evoke superior products from students. [The] marking scheme works well for all types of students because it offers the stability that some need (topics, grades, dates) and the total flexibility that others need. For me, it has been such a relief this year, that I can shape the course to suit me. By now I know how I do best, and how to manage my time. In my mind, much of what I do in teaching and evaluation can be defined as the development of collegial mentorship. I believe that learning should be a collegial relationship whatever the age and ability of the learner and whatever the topic. I attempt to activate that collegiality despite tuggings that I feel at times to assume the power that the role of professor can give. The tuggings are quite strong when my time is rushed and the occasional student pushes against the boundaries of my flexibility.

314

An Individualized Approach to Teaching and Evaluation However, the years that I have spent with students who experience exceptional challenge in learning, as well as with regular students, have persuaded me that the most powerful learning for all occurs under conditions of mutual respect, student choice and involvement, and flexibility. The interest, application and learning of the majority of my students reinforce me in my approach to teaching and evaluation and encourage me to continue to refine them.

315

The Norwegian Motivator, or How I Make Grading Work for Me and My Students Ken Carpenter

There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, about the introduction of medicare in Scandinavia. In one country, let us say Norway, the government gave doctors a range of different methods for receiving payment and all doctors were allowed individually to choose ones for themselves. Another country, let us say Sweden, announced one payment plan to be applied to all doctors alike. Only one country's doctors went on strike. Which one it would be is entirely predictable. Perhaps the Norwegian doctors were too busy mulling over the various schemes to work up sufficient irritation to fuel a strike, but as teachers we can recognize a more important aspect of their experience. By the very act of choosing their own scheme — on the basis of their own needs and preferences — the Norwegian doctors came to identify with the medicare program. What they identified with they were motivated to make succeed. For the past twenty-five years and more I have patterned the assignments in all the classes that I teach (in the faculties of Arts, Fine Arts and Graduate Studies) on the principle that a primary task of teachers (it might be best to pass a self-denying ordinance and never say "faculty members") is to ensure that their students can identify with the assignments. At the core of my method is the multi-option "commitment sheet" (Figure 1) that allows each of the students to choose on an individual basishw they wish to be graded. It's important that the different plans are seen to entail different kinds of work. To ensure that this procedure is believable to the students, I take class time to emphasize that I take pleasure in their success and want to set things up so that they can make the best use of their particular abilities and do well in the course. I do promise not to "curve" them down if the class does well as a whole. (I don't promise not to escalate the rigour of the class as we go along.) I also counsel them not to allow the option of choosing to paralyze them - it's out of that concern that I label the handout "commitment sheet" and set an initial deadline for choosing. 316

The Norwegian Motivator

Figure 1. Commitment Sheet This course has a three-option grading scheme; the bottom portion of this form is to be submitted by the last class in September. You will be allowed to change your plan at any time (subject only to deadlines) if you wish — just give me a note saying you're doing so. PLAN I*

One essay (due Dec. 14) Two tests (late Oct., Dec.)

50% 50% (25% each) 100% of course work

PLAN II

Two four- or five-page "reports" (due Nov. 11 and Dec. 16) 50% (25% each) End-of-term test** 50% 100% of course work

PLAN III

Three one-hour tests

33V3% each 100% of course work

*The late-October test (Plan I) covers syllabus topics 1-3; the December test covers topics 4-7. Each is one hour long. **The end-of-term test (Plan II) covers all topics and is two hours long. (Detach here) Economics 3120.03: Please keep a record of the plan you have chosen. NAME I have chosen PLAN

Two parallel actions are extremely important: I allow students to choose the dates for their term test by majority vote ("It is not my position to tell students when they can do their best work - you tell me") and I regularly tell the students that they are more capable than they think. The costs of this procedure are not great and the returns over the years have been considerable. The main cost is that one class might be lost to an alternative test, although, if one of the plans is less popular than the others, students might be happy to schedule a test outside of regular class times. There is also the time required to make up extra essay topics and test papers. For a teacher thinking in terms of the long run

317

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM and the accumulation of "human capital," that is, a bank of test and essay questions, this is by no means prohibitive. The principal benefit is that students' attitudes change substantially. I get numerous comments to the effect that, "We wish all our classes were like this"; "We work much harder for this class than we do for other classes because we know we can excel if we really work and think"; "It feels good to know that our teacher expects us to be successful"; "I would have hated the other assignments, but I was engrossed in mine." The satisfaction this brings to all parties is not to be underestimated. A secondary benefit is that students are more willing to accept rigorous demands; this is especially so if they are reminded on occasion that rigour helps to maintain their reputations. University teachers can maintain rigorous standards and at the same time establish a community of interests uniting students and teacher in the classroom. The commitment sheet or "Norwegian motivator" method is only one of many procedures that can work to this end, but it has been highly successful for me. I would never go without it.

318

INTRODUCTION TO SECTION VIII

Part 1 of this section opens with informal tools for assessing and developing your teaching. The first four articles describe simple, informal classroom assessment techniques you can use to determine whether students have learned core material. The Newton article provides a brief overview of the nature of classroom assessment techniques and the different ways that they can be used. Following that is an article by Aldridge and Merrens that speak of the usefulness of the "One-Minute Paper" in different disciplinary settings. A second article by Newton urges faculty to use increasingly more challenging questions in One-Minute Papers to encourage higher levels of intellectual skill development among students. While those first articles suggest simple techniques that a teacher could readily use to assess learning in a given class, the subsequent articles in this section focus on the evaluation of a course. Part 2 addresses formative course evaluations. The Everett article distinguishes between year-end assessments, or summative evaluations, and formative evaluation surveys that are carried out midway through a course. He applauds the value of formative evaluation surveys since the teacher gets the feedback in time to make changes during the course. Alternative types of formative evaluations are described in the articles by Lang, who uses a student feedback committee, and by McKenna, who solicits student feedback in a variety of ways throughout the course. Part 3 focuses on peer pairing, a collegial way to evaluate and develop your teaching. The Sbrizzi article describes the basic logic of peer pairing, in which partners observe each other's teaching, consult with students and give each other feedback. Though Sbrizzi describes a model that works with institutional support, two colleagues could easily follow this model's guidelines without institutional intervention. The article by Whalen et al describes in detail how peer pairing worked for a group of colleagues in French studies. The benefits of peer pairing accrued not only to the faculty members: students' awareness of the peer-pairing process enhanced the learning atmosphere of the class as students came to appreciate that their input was valued. The last two parts of this section include guides developed by York University's Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning: the Teaching Evaluation Guide (Part 4) and the Teaching Documentation Guide (Part 5). The Evaluation Guide offers useful advice and guidance for those wishing to develop and improve their teaching using a range of formative and summative methodologies for evaluating teaching effectiveness. Likewise, the Documentation Guide offers assistance with documenting the variety and complexity of an individual's teaching contributions. In combination, the guides promote good teaching by encouraging systematic teaching contributions and reflective practice among university teachers at all stages of their academic careers.

320

Part One: Classroom Assessment

Improving Student Learning Through Feedback: Classroom Assessment Techniques Janice Newton

In 1990, I had the good fortune of attending a week-long workshop on Classroom Assessment Techniques, based on the work of Patricia Cross and Tom Angelo.1 Though I was familiar with many of the teaching techniques presented at the workshop, the logic of classroom assessment was new to me and I found it a compelling approach to thinking about teaching and improving student learning in my classes. After the workshop, I found myself thinking about teaching in entirely new ways and was inspired to adapt existing assessment techniques and develop some new ones for my political science classes.2 Classroom assessment differs from what most of us would call teaching techniques. It responds to the core challenge of teaching: when we teach something, how do we know the students "got it"? Often that question is answered by a midterm examination or test, but by then it is too late to address the gap between what we thought we taught and what the students actually learned. Classroom assessment techniques respond to this problem. These simple, easy-to-administer techniques can be used throughout any course. Typically, in a variety of ways, they ask students to demonstrate their understanding of what was just taught. Each classroom assessment technique usually embodies the following traits: It solicits only information that will help you, or the students, do a better job. It is anonymous (usually). It is ungraded (usually). It should be easy for students to complete and for you to assess. The aggregate results are always given back to the class. Student responses are collected to measure what was learned in a particular segment of a course or class. While individual students might be curious to see whether their understanding fell in line with that of the rest of the class, the overall class pattern of what was or was not learned is of more interest to the instructor than any individual response. 321

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Classroom assessment techniques can be wonderful ways to make lectures more participatory and they can promote active learning in any class setting, from a large lecture with three hundred students to a small graduate seminar.3 Rather than waiting until the midterm test, we can use an assessment technique in the middle of a lecture; for example, to see if the students understood an important concept discussed in that lecture. It is crucial, however, that we do not stop at this point. Once we have gleaned information about what students have learned, we must summarize the students' responses and report them back to the class as soon as possible. This feedback process does two crucial things. First, it engages students in an ongoing reflection on whether they are understanding course material and it encourages them to self-monitor their own learning regularly. This creates opportunities for students to act immediately on gaps in their learning, rather than waiting for the midterm to get such feedback, at which point it is often too late for the student to recover lost ground. Second, if there is a significant gap between what I thought I taught and what the students can demonstrate that they learned, then I am forced to reconsider how I initially delivered, organized or presented the course material. Because the feedback is immediate, usually collected in one class and summarized in the next, I have the opportunity to teach the material in a different way in response to the gaps in student learning. Rather than relying on impressionistic measures, such as the looks of interest in students' faces as I lecture or the responses of the few students who do talk in class, this method gives me a concrete measure of the success of my teaching - based soundly on what students have or have not learned. The genius of classroom assessment, I believe, is this recursive quality that keeps both students and faculty truly focused on whether students are learning the course material. Students are drawn into the process of regularly monitoring their own learning in the course and faculty are challenged to continually adjust and tailor their teaching in response to student learning. The three articles that follow discuss variations of the assessment technique called the "One-Minute Paper." This has become a popular technique because it is easy to use and can be adapted readily to any class size or subject. A variation on this is, "What was the muddiest point in today's lecture?," which helps identify segments of a class that need clarification. I have also adapted the "Background Knowledge Probe," which I use in the first class of an "Introduction to Politics" course. I design about twenty questions on areas of background knowledge that I might expect to take for granted in preparing lectures for the course: general political history, institutional knowledge, terminology, etc. Students are asked to indicate whether they have never heard of the term, are somewhat familiar with it but not too sure or whether they understand it clearly and could explain it to a friend. Based on the results of this background knowledge probe, I can adapt the course outline and lectures according to areas of acknowledged weakness and strength in students' background knowledge.

322

Improving Student Learning Through Feedback

This is but a small sampling of the range of techniques assembled by Pat Cross and Tom Angelo. In their book you will find a wealth of ideas for classroom assessment techniques, some more complex and difficult than others, but with some imagination, many of the techniques can be adapted readily for use in your own courses. It is worth the effort to improve student learning in your classes.

Notes 1. For examples of the techniques discussed at the workshop see Cross and Angelo (1988). 2. For an example of one assessment technique I developed to deal with the problem of plagiarism, see the article "Plagiarism and the Challenge of Essay Writing: Learning From Our Students" in Section V. 3. See the Rogers article, "Improving Student Learning in Lectures," in Section VI, Part 1.

References Cross, Patricia K. and Thomas A. Angelo. 1988. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for faculty. Ann Arbour, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

323

The One-Minute Paper ... Two Success Stories Keith Aldridge and Roy Merrens

The two stories that follow were contributed to Core, York's Newsletter on University Teaching, in reaction to the publication of an article describing the OneMinute Paper1. Each story documents the unexpected nature of the feedback the technique can elicit from students and the power this gives the instructors to modify their teaching.

Roy Merrens: What I've been reading recently about the One-Minute Paper finally convinced me I really had to try it. The notion of a cheap and simple tool that offered instant feedback, for both students and teacher, was irresistible. I decided to use a One-Minute paper during a two-hour class session in which I was planning to present some especially important material. The purpose of the lecture component was, in fact, to identify and elaborate upon two ideas central to the entire course. I made the two points in what was, I thought, a remarkably lucid lecture presentation. I distributed scrap paper and asked the students to take a minute to jot down, anonymously, in just a sentence or two, the two main points of the lecture. I then collected and read their responses. The results were revealing indeed - to the students as well as to me. The most revealing response read as follows: Professor Merrens: I don't want to come across as a "smart ass" but I really don't know what your message is. I think an overhead or some other (sic) would be better in getting your message across. Instead, I have been watching the sunlight move across the wall behind you. It honestly seems more interesting. It moves about one cm every one and a half minutes. I never really noticed it before but it is sort of interesting. ...A salutary reminder, among other things, of the fact that I can't draw reassuring conclusions about my effectiveness as a teacher from the interested expressions on the faces of the students. 324

The One-Minute Paper ... Two Success Stories

Keith Aldridge: At the first meeting of my Introductory Earth and Atmospheric Science course last fall, I asked my 149 students to take a single sheet of paper and write on it, in one or two sentences, their response to the following questions: What was the main point of my lecture today? What point was least clearly made? I informed the students that their papers would be collected at the end of the lecture and I would respond to their comments in the next lecture. They seemed visibly to brighten at the thought of really having a chance to affect the proceedings rather than filling in a form at the end of the term and not realizing any benefits themselves from their comments. Neither the students nor I appreciated how revealing and literally clarifying this new procedure would be as the course unfolded. My first experience with the One-Minute Paper revealed that most of the class had never heard of a concept called 'angular momentum' even though I had mentioned it at least a dozen times in the lecture. So I put together a small demonstration for the next lecture and gave a short tutorial on this important idea. The students seemed to appreciate this and it was a pleasant reward to find that day's One-Minute Papers said so. This began our exchange through anonymous notes that generated a new rapport between the students and me. Sometimes I was able to predict with great certainty that I would get a flood of notes when I had not given enough time to a more complex idea. But more often, I received notes that surprised me. I recall one student whose English was weak and who spoke very softly but often asked questions. The questions were usually good ones too. Notes began to arrive saying that I had spent too much time answering his questions and besides the other students couldn't hear his questions. I realised that I had been thinking too much about my answers to this student's questions and not enough about the other students, so I began to repeat his questions so the others would benefit too. More notes, in the same handwriting, that I was still spending too much time with that 'foreign guy' — I winced, remembering there were downsides to anonymity.

Notes 1. For a revised version of the article that inspired these stories see Rogers, "Improving Student Learning in Lectures," in Section VI, Part 1. Keith Aldridge's article was originally published in January 1992 in Core 2 (2) and Roy Merrens' article in October 1992 in Core 3(2).

325

Developing the One-Minute Paper Janice Newton

In its most basic form, the question for the One-Minute Paper is usually brief and focused: "What was the most important point you learned in today's lecture?"; "What was the muddiest point?"; or "Do you have any outstanding questions?" Cross and Angelo (1988,148-50) provide a good summary of the One-Minute Paper and argue that it is one of the easiest and most effective of classroom assessment techniques.1 However, they also encourage faculty to "adapt" classroom assessment techniques such as the One-Minute Paper to suit their specific needs, and many faculty have done so. For example, Kloss (1993) varied the nature of the question, its timing and its focus. At the outset of a class he asked students to write about what they found difficult or confusing in the week's readings. He quickly reviewed these responses while students worked on other tasks, then began his lecture by clarifying important points raised in the students' responses.2 In its variety of forms, this simple technique for soliciting anonymous feedback is a wonderful way for us to satisfy — even in large lectures — one of the criterion that is known to promote learning: it encourages students to become active learners. I believe that we can further the students' active role by progressively increasing the level of difficulty of questions posed by the One-Minute Paper. The question, "What was the most important point?" encourages a particular kind of intellectual activity: the ability to understand and repeat what was just said. In light of research on stages of intellectual growth and development, this reflects a relatively low level of intellectual skill.3 This level of skill is certainly important, perhaps especially at the outset of a course or when introducing new concepts, but we should not be limited to this kind of question. If we do not move beyond this level of question, our students might be content with a relatively passive intellectual role in our courses. We might encourage students' belief that important ideas are generated by others, in this case the professor or authors of the texts, and that their role is to absorb the wisdom of experts 326

Developing the One-Minute Paper and regurgitate it on demand. I believe that if we appropriately increase the level of difficulty of our questions over the duration of a course, we can help our students achieve higher levels of intellectual development. As we increase the intellectual challenge of our questions, we encourage students to be more engaged and reflective in our lectures. For example, once you have established that students understand a basic concept, you might ask, "How would you apply this concept to a real situation?" or "How would you relate this concept to other course material?" thereby challenging students to relate the concept to new situations or to connect it with other parts of the course. This compels them to call upon their own knowledge and relate it to the lecture material, thus increasing understanding and recall of the concept. If the class, on the whole, can think of reasonable examples, we can be assured that they understood the lecture material. If many students are unable to think of examples or applications, we can consider altering our approach in the next lecture, using examples from students' responses to clarify the concept or providing further guidance for those students who had trouble moving to this new stage of intellectual development. We will still have gleaned important information about what students have learned, but these different questions will have generated some important supplemental benefits. Progressively increasing the level of difficulty of our questions communicates a different set of expectations. As our questions move beyond the challenge of absorbing and repeating course material, we train students to become more active thinkers in the classroom, accustomed to deploying their own wonder and curiosity: "What do I think of this?" "How might this idea be useful?" "Can this idea help explain other things I have studied?" Though not every student will be able to respond to higher-level questions initially, and some might require a longer period of time for reflection, nonetheless the exercise creates an opportunity for students to practise these skills in an ungraded forum. In the anonymous safety of the One-Minute Paper, we communicate to students our confidence in their growing abilities to engage with course material and see it as relevant to themselves and the world they are coming to know through their studies. Another advantage is that more advanced questions create a unique opportunity for us to encourage students to value and respect each others' ideas. When I use OneMinute Papers in my course on public policy, I often ask for examples from current events to illustrate a particular point I am covering in the lecture. Invariably, some students in the class come up with terrific ideas that might not have occurred to me, and I enjoy reading these responses back to the class. I am impressed with how this simple technique elicits original thought from the students and stimulates interest. It provides a regular opportunity for me to encourage students to value each others' ideas and see themselves as generators of knowledge. If some students' responses to these more complex questions are confused, they need not feel isolated. You have an opportunity to respond immediately to their concerns in the subsequent class by clarifying the material, suggesting helpful readings

327

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

or using responses generated by other students to help illustrate important points. The key is immediate feedback; for after all, this is a form of dialogue between you and your students. At the first opportunity, I give the class a summary of their responses and address important outstanding questions that emerged from their responses. Students whose questions I am unable to address in class are encouraged to speak with me at the end of the lecture or during my office hours. If the material is important, I might type up the most common student responses, include my own comments, and make this available for the class to consult. These student responses become a wonderful supplement to lecture notes, and in stimulating recall of course content, they provide a terrific review for tests and exams. In summary, by using a broad range of questions in the One-Minute Paper we still glean the same valuable information about student learning in our classes. If students can apply an important point covered in a lecture to something that falls within their scope of knowledge, or if they can connect it to other ideas discussed in the course, then you can be satisfied that they understand your most important point. But these more sophisticated questions also communicate a higher level of expectations to your students. It is a way of saying to your students, "I don't just want you to repeat what I said, I want you to be able to use these ideas." You are encouraging them to engage in a dialogue with you and other students, a dialogue in which their ideas count, their curiosity and knowledge are valued and they can help illuminate the course for other students.

Notes 1. This technique has gained widespread popularity through the Harvard Assessment Seminars (Light 1990, 35-38). 2. While Kloss's technique (1988) works for a relatively small class, you could use this technique in a larger class by sampling a few student responses. For examples of variations on the One-Minute Paper, see Olmstead (1991), Cottell (1991), Mosteller (1989), Rogers (1991), Pernecky (1993) and Kort (1991). 3. For two different theoretical discussions of the stage of intellectual development that corresponds to this kind of question, see Belenky's discussion (1986) of received knowledge and Perry's discussion (1970) of dualism. See also the article by Page Westcott, "Student Development: From Problem Solving to Problem Finding," in Section II.

328

Developing the One-Minute Paper

References Belenky, Mary et aJ. 1986. Women's ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books. Cottell, Philip G. 1991. Classroom research in accounting: Assessing for learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 46 (summer): 43-54. Cross, Patricia K. and Thomas A. Angelo. 1988. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for faculty. Ann Arbour, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Kloss, Robert J. 1993. Stay in touch, won't you. College Teaching 41 (spring): 60-63. Kort, Melissa Sue. 1991. Re-visioning our teaching: Classroom research and composition. New Directions for Teaching and Learning46 (summer): 35—42. Light, Richard. 1990. The Harvard Assessment Seminars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University School of Graduate Education. Mosteller, F. 1989. The muddiest point in the lecture as a feedback device. On Teaching and Learning (Harvard-Danforth Center for Teaching and Learning) 3 (April): 10-21. Olmstead, John. 1991. Using classroom research in a large introductory science class. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 46 (summer): 55-65. Perry, William. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. Pernecky, Mark. 1993. Reaction papers enrich economics discussions. College Teaching 41 (summer): 8991. Rogers, Pat. 1991. Improving student learning. Core 2 (1): 1,4.

329

Part Two: Mid-Course Evaluation

Formative Evaluation Surveys Bob Everett

Although they are less common than other forms of course surveys, formative evaluation surveys can be extremely effective teaching aids. Formative evaluations conducted during a course provide instructors with opportunities to gauge progress towards course objectives, to encourage student feedback and to reinforce information communicated in outlines and classroom discussions. More than that, they hold out the promise of engaging students and instructors in a constructive dialogue that can advance teaching and learning aspirations while enriching shared experiences in the classroom. The formative evaluation is one of several types of course and instruction surveys. In some instances, students and instructors are now doing self-evaluations. Teaching is also evaluated by means of independent audits carried out by observers. The most common variety of curriculum and instruction survey is the summative evaluation, one that is typically conducted at the end of a course. Students are asked to reflect on their personal history and assess various aspects of course content, evaluate the quality of teaching and relate the course to their scholarly interests and degree programs. Questionnaire results are usually deeded to instructors, prospective students or the teaching units. At the faculty or departmental level, information gathered in this way could feature in curriculum planning or tenure and promotion decisions. There are a number of problems associated with summative evaluations. Term's end could find respondents in a state of heightened anxiety or relief. Attendance can be lower than at other stages of a course, and questions might not unlock recollections of the critical early phase. Results are often published selectively, if at all. Teaching units might not have devised course evaluation policies. Comprehensive or universitywide surveys frequently present familiar resource dilemmas of money, means and methods. This can lead to cost-cutting measures, streamlining and over-emphasis on aggregated numbers. Conversely, standard survey forms might not adequately capture the unique teaching and learning situations or the distinct aims of particular courses. 330

Formative Evaluation Surveys

Questionnaire design and data analysis are bound to require some sophistication if results are to be meaningful or if they are circulated. None of these drawbacks diminishes the inherent value of summative evaluations. Certainly there is little to fear from evaluations and much to gain from their incorporation into teaching strategies. However, these problems do argue in favour of concerted, cooperative efforts to develop appropriate policies governing their use and support. At the same time, some of these limitations can be overcome through the use of formative evaluations. Formative evaluations complement other forms of evaluation while offering their own special advantages. The single most compelling reason to employ formative evaluations consists of the capacity to impart and receive information while a course is in progress. Instructors and students alike have a chance to clarify approaches and expectations early on. A well-constructed survey yields insights about the adequacy of preparation and presentation of course material, alerting instructors to problems. Students - who tend to participate in formative evaluations with enthusiasm - can communicate any uncertainties or frustrations as well as any positive comments. If the results are compiled and distributed - as they should be - they become the basis for further discussions along these lines. From the perspective of instructors, the questionnaire itself is a channel for basic communication about the nature and aims of a course. In an ideal world, detailed course outlines and positive reputations would pique interest. Students would be fully prepared for the specific topics, approaches and challenges of a particular course. For a variety of reasons, free and informed course selection is not always possible. Even as the answers identify concerns or difficulties for instructors, the questions themselves convey information to students. Conscientious instructors take great pains to develop outlines, select and assemble readings, and make arrangements with their departments, the libraries and the bookstore. But are there enough books on order? Have the readings been put on reserve? Is the grading scheme clear? A formative evaluation is a timely means of following up on these sorts of practicalities. There are few hard and fast and rules on how to construct a formative evaluation. In the absence of set guidelines, the precise format is likely to depend on circumstances and an instructor's sense of aspects of the course that ought to be considered. A spirit of openness and a little sound advice are the only indispensable prerequisites. Literature and sample evaluation forms are available at York University's Centre for the Support of Teaching. Similar material —and policies that might exist —might also be on file with the teaching unit. The advice will seem common-sensical, stressing brevity, clarity and simplicity. In terms of timing, a formative survey generally works best when the rhythms of the course are established and evident but not unalterably fixed. Leave sufficient time for enrolments to settle and wait until key introductory topics have been covered, contacts outside of the classroom have begun and some readings explored. The best time might be in the period between the first explanation of a first assignment and its 331

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

submission. Some questions can then be aimed at discovering if students have understood the nature of the assignment or if they would like any further guidance. The questions themselves could range over organizational matters and substantive issues. Asking if students have encountered difficulty making contact is both a way of learning if they are experiencing troubles and a reminder of course director availability. A few sight identifications of reading passages can highlight problems of comprehension while drawing attention to important texts. Leave space for open-ended comments. Based on personal experience, some of the most inspired and beneficial observations come from the opportunity for students to express their own concerns in their own way. Some cautionary notes are in order. One risk turns on the possibility that an evaluation exercise will raise false expectations by fostering the belief that wholesale changes can be made. Students seldom make this assumption, but the purposes of the exercise should be made clear at the outset. By the same token, if the survey leads to adjustments in the format for weekly tutorial or seminar presentations (to inspire more discussion, for example) it is possible that some students will feel slighted. Few are likely to object to positive initiatives, but it is wise to take extra time to explore the implications in terms of grading and individual workloads.

332

Facilitating Student Feedback Reg Lang

You design the course. You deliver the course. At the end, the students evaluate the course. Along the way, a few of them let you know how things are going. You ask for more comments but few are forthcoming. Result: you receive summative feedback, useful for redesigning the course for a future offering, but you lack formative feedback that will help you improve the current version on a week-by-week basis. Perhaps this experience is typical, perhaps not. It was for me until a few years ago. I found it difficult to find out, as the course progressed, whether and what students were learning. Quizzes and mini-assignments were options but they still left me unsure of how much of my material was getting across to the students and whether it met their learning needs. Such information is important in a program such as ours that emphasizes, especially at the graduate level where I have done most of my teaching, self-directedness based on individual plans of study (Lang 1997). The 1988 conference of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education equipped me with a further technique for addressing this problem: the feedback committee. Dr. Andy Farquharson of the University of Victoria's School of Social Work described this approach (1988) to tracking and modifying the process and content of undergraduate courses with approximately fifty students (mine are masters' students in groups of fifteen to twenty). Farquharson uses feedback committees in conjunction with Kolb's Learning Style Inventory and a Group Norms Scale. I often employ the Learning Style Inventory along with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to identify students' preferred ways of learning and interacting Here's how I use feedback committees in my courses. A small group of three or four student volunteers constitutes the feedback committee, which then provides a two-way conduit for ongoing evaluation of the course plus, where appropriate, redesign of its content and the teaching-learning process. This exchange occurs in half-hour meetings with me after class once every two or three weeks. We've experimented with various ways of obtaining feedback from the other students: 333

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM informal discussion at the end of a class, with me present; "structured critique" forms; and, the one that seems to work best, setting aside ten minutes after key classes (for example, at the end of a section of the course) for feedback committee members to gather input from their colleagues in my absence. Feedback committee members also receive feedback informally throughout the course. My experience with feedback committees in seventeen courses over the years demonstrates that this approach has several important benefits: It "models the understanding that effective learners are those who assume increasing responsibility for the management of their learning" (Farquharson 1988, 6), an important survival skill in today's world. It gives me quick feedback on the effectiveness of the instructional process valuable information for designing upcoming sessions of the course and its future offerings. I've consistently found feedback committee members to be rich sources of ideas for improving learning processes. It provides a setting for me to discuss my concerns about the course. Sharing views with the students and getting their input eases the pressure that accompanies trying to create an effective learning experience. Receiving immediate feedback (yes, even the negative) feels good. At the end of the day I can leave knowing how things went rather than carrying away a nagging feeling that maybe something didn't work, maybe I talked too much, etc. The opportunity to give feedback is appreciated by the students. I've often heard, "No one has ever asked me before." As well, they gain a useful interpersonal skill. Committee members benefit from being involved in designing and adapting a learning process. It is essential that the feedback committee's terms of reference be clearly established up front. I clearly state that the committee's existence does not diminish the right of individual students to make their views known to me. I ask them to check whether their concern is shared by their peers; if so, it's a public issue that ought to be raised in a feedback session and if not, they are invited to take it up with me oneto-one. I point out that the committee is neither a vehicle for individual student complaints nor an exercise in co-opting or defusing dissent. I emphasize that as instructor, I retain responsibility for the course; it's up to me to determine whether to act on suggestions that come from the committee. I keep the class informed of my discussions with the feedback committee and give reasons for any decisions I make as a result. Finally, I try not to overdo it; too much feedback can be tiresome for all concerned. My conclusion is that the feedback committee offers a useful vehicle for instructors and students to take mutual responsibility for creating the best possible course and enhancing the learning experience. The approach works for me and it helps make teaching and the facilitation of learning a more rewarding experience.

334

Facilitating Student Feedback

References Farquharson, A. 1988. Experiencing the learner: Three strategies. Paper presented to the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. McMaster University, June 19. Lang, Reg. 1997. The plan of study: A pathway to student-centered learning. Paper presented to the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. University of Regina, June 11—15.

335

Feedback Strategies Mary Lou McKenna

For many instructors, year-end evaluations provide the main source of student feedback on course content and on our own performance. Whatever the advantages or limitations of this exercise, two things seem clear: it does not always communicate what is really on students' minds, and communication occurs at a point when opportunity for timely response to student concerns is obviated. Over the past few years I have come to rely on more informal strategies for student feedback, both as a complement to formal evaluations and as compensation in their absence. Though rather simple exercises, they elicit sometimes surprising responses. In the first or second week of classes, after I have introduced the course and set out my expectations, I ask my students to jot down some information about themselves -their academic/personal background, why they signed up for the course, what their expectations or concerns are or whatever they wish me to know. I remember my own pleasure in a similar exercise when a graduate seminar instructor solicited information on student interests as well as input on course direction. As feedback, this exercise can yield a variety of information and provide a number of benefits. For a start, it reveals the personality lurking behind the often tentative or impassive expressions of a new class. Though some students reply with the bare minimum of information, others embark on lengthy and personal dialogues with the instructor, identifying the apprehension and excitement they feel as mature students, newcomers to the country, or small-town residents confronting the vastness of York University. Some identify their dreams and plans; others, their fears and difficulties. Second, the exercise provides a sketch of the class's background and skill level. Students often list previous and current courses related to your own as well as indicating the range of their reading interests. Third, feedback on your presentation of the course is usually forthcoming. In this area, students often comment on the perceived fairness of course requirements and evaluation schemes, whether the course seems interesting, what they hope for in terms of class discussion, which texts or 336

Feedback Strategies topics they look forward to and what aspects of the course raise concern. For example, I learned in one class that the lone male student felt intimidated by the male-to-female ratio, thus alerting me to the special effort that might be required to make him feel comfortable in the tutorial. In another case, a student expressed her concern about ensuring equal effort in group seminar projects. Clearly, instructor awareness of such concerns is invaluable when the feedback is timely. Some students will even provide you with a rating on your opening monologue (dialogue?), commenting on whether they were made to feel at ease or intimidated by your demeanor. Indeed, there is no limit to the range of feedback produced by this simple and informal exercise, which at the very least functions as an ice breaker and creates goodwill between you and your students. The second feedback tool I sometimes employ at year's end is to provide the students with a list of the year's texts and ask them to rate them on interest, relevance and readability. When fifteen out of twenty students tell you they hated a. particular text, or that NEVER is a good time of year to ask them to read Gone With the Wind, it is at the very least food for thought. In the past, I have combined this exercise with a short discussion in which I invite students to comment on course direction, assignments and readings and to recommend changes that they feel would benefit the course in the future. Students seem very willing to express their ideas and respond to directed questioning more thoughtfully than they do to a blank space inviting them to comment on whatever comes to mind. I believe that they appreciate this clear demonstration of the instructor's interest in how the course is run and what kind of experience they have had. While I am suggesting the use of these feedback strategies at the beginning and end of the course, clearly they can be combined and adapted for use mid-year — say, at the end of the first term -when they will either lend assurance that the course is unfolding as it should or create the incentive for you to rethink your strategy. Using these tools mid-year to evaluate the progress of the course requires both courage and commitment - courage to risk being confronted with less than overwhelming adulation for your approach while you're in the midst of it, and commitment to respond reasonably and in a timely fashion to student concerns. The formal evaluation remains the avenue through which, with guaranteed anonymity, students can freely express their honest feelings about the course and the instructor. But by giving the students more timely and informal forums for affecting the course environment, and by bringing the evaluation process into the open, you can achieve a more satisfactory course experience for all concerned and diffuse the buildup of negative feelings with which you are sometimes surprised at year's end, while addressing student perceptions in such a way that they can better appreciate future instructors' rationales and motivations.

337

Part Three: Collegial Consultation

Peer Pairing Sue Sbrizzi

Peer pairing is a process by which two instructors are teamed for the purpose of providing each other with mutual support and feedback on their teaching effectiveness. It was developed by Joseph Katz and run successfully for several years through the New Jersey Institute of Collegiate Teaching and Learning at Seton Hall University (Katz and Henry 1988). The essence of peer pairing is that the partners take turns, for a set period of time, observing each other teach, conducting student interviews in order to deepen their understanding of how to help each other improve, providing constructive feedback and acting as sounding boards for each other's ideas. The length of time spent working together can vary depending on other commitments. It is more important that the peer partners respect each other and be committed to working together than that they are in the same discipline or have the same teaching goals. For example, Professor A and Professor B decide to work together for one term. They agree that Professor A will spend the first half of the term observing and providing feedback to Professor B and that their roles will be reversed in the second half of the term. At the beginning of the agreed period, and before any observations take place, the pair meets to discuss their teaching goals and to establish the ground rules for their work together. In our example, since Professor B is being observed first, she is the one who sets the ground rules for the first observation period. When the pair meets, they develop a list of specific aspects of Professor B's teaching on which she would like Professor A to focus. This list can be extensive or quite limited, but it should always be discussed fully before the observation begins. For example, Professor B might ask Professor A to notice student participation: are the students engaged? When do they take notes? Do they ask questions? Do they speak to other students? the quality of student responses to questions the nature and frequency of her questioning — is there enough variety? 338

Peer Pairing the student's ability to apply course content to problem solving and critical thinking her discussion skills time management her communication skills the clarity of her explanations discrepancies between her stated course goals, her implicit goals and the student's goals the learning environment - is she sensitive to race, class and gender issues? where students sit distracting mannerisms.

Student Interviews Continuing with our example, Professor B introduces Professor A to her class and tells them he is conducting research on student learning and will be a regular visitor to the class for the first six weeks of term. Professor A tells the class that he is interested in the students' learning experience and invites them to volunteer to participate in his research. From those who volunteer, he selects a group of about three students whom he will interview regularly, either individually or in a group. The focus of the student interviews is on what is happening in the class - what works, what doesn't. The results of the interviews, as well as feedback from the classroom observations, are discussed during regular meetings between the pair.

Benefits While they are being observers, instructors receive useful information on areas of their teaching in which they themselves have expressed an interest. Instructors find that they often learn more about their own teaching when observing someone else teach than they do when being observed because in the observer role they are less defensive and more able to reflect on teaching and learning in a broader context. The interviewing process often changes both partners'views on students and often results in improved instructor—student relations on many levels. Overall, it is valuable and rewarding for both participants in this process to have a colleague who is interested in and supportive of their attempts to improve their teaching.

References Katz, Joseph and Mildred Henry. 1988. Turning professors into teachers: A new approach to faculty development and student learning. New York: Macmillan. 339

Peer Pairing in French Studies Karen Whalen, Louise Morrison, Myriam deBie Waller

The peer-pairing observational model provides a framework on which to base enquiry into the complexities of teacher-student interaction. Regardless of discipline-specific concerns, there are general issues that can be shared by colleagues from any field. Although many peer-pairing experiences successfully involve paired colleagues from different academic units, the instructors in French studies felt that they needed to address specific teaching and learning issues related to second-language teaching. Given the complexity of our task as teachers, it is often impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of our delivery in the classroom. Inviting a colleague to regularly observe our classroom can provide meaningful insight, which is often impossible to obtain in other ways despite our most conscientious efforts. Furthermore, our perception of what is taking place in the classroom can be far removed from the students' perception of what is taking place. The presence of a friendly and attentive observer allows us to view our classroom from a different perspective; these views otherwise might have gone unnoticed. Such a framework assists us in asking essential questions about the effectiveness of our teaching techniques in terms of the quality of the student learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, the observations of a supportive colleague help us better understand our personal and professional vision of our role as teachers and its subsequent influence on our pedagogical choices. If colleagues are concerned about some aspects of their teaching, peer pairing is a professional development tool that can offer new insights, initiate discussion between peers and provide collegial support and feedback.

A Peer-Pairing Classroom Observational Project Four instructors in the Department of French Studies attended a CST workshop that described the peer consultation process. These instructors decided to initiate an extensive classroom observational project by agreeing to submit their teaching to intensive self- and peer evaluation over a two-year period. While individual concerns initially motivated participation in the project, all members shared the view that this 340

Peer Pairing in French Studies mode of enquiry provides a powerful tool for understanding the complexity of second-language teaching and learning processes. The subsequent award of a Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning Fellowship provided the release time necessary for carrying out frequent classroom observations and other forms of data collection (videotaping, student interviews, instructor—peer interviews, etc.). From the start, it was felt that a holistic observational approach at the beginning stages of the project would allow the instructors to better understand who they were as teachers and in what directions they would like to develop further. They subsequently decided to adapt a peer-pairing method of enquiry similar to that described in the preceding article by Sbrizzi.

Steps in the Peer-Pairing Observational Process In our adaptation of the peer-pairing model, the pairs of colleagues agree to spend an entire academic year observing one another's classes. One instructor takes on an observational role, visiting her colleague's classroom once a week. Six steps in the peer-pairing process can be summarized in the following manner: 1. Establishing a timetable. After consulting the "observee's" teaching schedule, the observer and observee agree on a convenient day and time for classroom visits. 2. Setting the tone and agenda. An initial meeting with the observer allows the observee to set the agenda and make up a list of issues he would like to reflect upon. 3. Classroom visits and observations (data collection). Depending on the class they are observing, some instructors might prefer to observe a series of consecutive classes over a two- or three-week period several times during the year. While each peer-pairing group will make such decisions based on individual and clearly defined objectives, it is nevertheless necessary to observe a class regularly enough that the observer develops a clear understanding of the instructor's objectives and teaching style. 4. Discussing the observation: the follow-up meeting. Observer and observee meet after each observation session to discuss that particular class. 5. Videotaping classroom observation sessions and discussions between observer and ins true tor. This procedure provides an additional dimension to the peer-pairing process. For example, it might confirm peer observations or it could serve to identify other teacher and learner behaviours that had not been revealed by the observer. 6. Soliciting student input A) Instructors can distribute questionnaires to gather essential information concerning personal and academic profiles, learning strategy profiles, course evaluation and specific class evaluations. These questionnaires serve to include student perceptions in the data collection process. B) Interviews between the observer and students serve to involve students directly in the ongoing dialogue about the teaching and learning taking place in the classroom.

341

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Furthermore, face-to-face interaction between the students and observer will provide more in-depth and significant data.

What Can Be Learned From Peer-Pairing Observation? It is inevitable that individual teaching styles reflect who instructors are as real people and that the observer comes with her own perception of her role as a teacher. This exchange between observer and observee can be very productive, especially if they have different teaching styles and can recognize this reality without feeling threatened. The interaction between peers during the follow-up discussion benefits the observee because it often confirms an intuition about teaching style and particular teaching techniques and strategies. In addition, the exchange of ideas increases both parties' awareness of possible approaches to teaching and enables them to trace common areas of concern and interest.

What Was Learned by the French Studies Experience? While the initial purpose of undertaking the peer-pairing project was to collaborate to improve the teaching and learning taking place in the second-language classroom, the participating instructors addressed a number of questions that evolved with the project. They include questions such as: What kinds of activities are used in the language classroom? Do these activities have an explicit teaching objective? Are students aware of our teaching objectives? Do instructors use specific teaching strategies with specific learning objectives in mind? Do they get the expected response from students? Can we draw some conclusions in terms of learning outcomes? Do teachers teach what they think they teach? Do students learn what teachers think they learn? What types of instructional intervention are most effective? The ultimate goals of these instructors included: categorizing various types of activities initiated by the teacher understanding how the teacher feels the students respond to these activities understanding how students perceive these teaching-learning activities understanding how the observer assesses the students' reaction to these activities. The extensive data collected at each step of the peer-pairing process allowed the instructors to compare the students' perception of a positive learning experience with that of the instructor and the observer. When these perceptions did not correspond, they were able to explain differences of opinion. Perhaps one of the most interesting and challenging experiences involved soliciting student input from the very beginning of the academic year. Although some colleagues felt uncomfortable with this step, they soon discovered that their students 342

Peer Pairing in French Studies were a valuable source of information. Given the opportunity and the forum to express themselves in an open and collaborative environment, students were able to articulate ideas and feelings about their learning experience. Encouraging student participation in this enquiry process made them aware that they had an equally important role to play in the classroom. This awareness created a new type of interaction whereby students and instructor regularly reflected on the effectiveness of their teaching and learning strategies. In some cases, peer pairing served as a powerful "atmosphere enhancer" because students came to class knowing that their instructor valued their input. For this reason, it seemed that students were more motivated to learn and more comfortable in both individual and group learning situations. In terms of concrete ramifications on individual teaching practices, the ongoing dialogue with students allows the instructor to evaluate the effect of teaching style and strategies on student learning. As a result of this valuable feedback, instructors are then able to modify and adapt teaching strategies to the needs and learning styles of their students. The French studies group continues to describe and better understand the teaching-learning process through an interpretive analysis of student-teacher interaction and perceptions.

343

Part Four: Teaching Evaluation Guide

Teaching Evaluation Guide Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning York University

Purpose This Teaching Evaluation Guide is a companion to the Teaching Documentation Guide produced by the York University Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning in November 1990 and revised in December 1993 (see next article). It is aimed at providing teachers with advice on documenting the variety and complexity of their teaching contributions. This Teaching Evaluation Guide provides teachers with advice on how to document their teaching as part of a systematic program of teaching development. As well, it provides guidance on how teaching might be evaluated fairly and effectively, what characteristics of teaching might be considered and what evaluation methods are best suited for which purpose. Further, the guide provides samples of items that might be suitable for inclusion in evaluation instruments.

Need for the Guide Teaching is currently evaluated using narrow rather than broadly based criteria. Recent research suggests that if evaluation of teaching is to become less threatening (summative evaluation is in essence judgemental) and more an opportunity for growth and change (that is, formative), then it is essential that faculty and administrators work together to develop procedures that recognize that teaching is a complex and personal activity. Informed judgements can be made only when several techniques are used to provide information from various perspectives on different characteristics of teaching. There is no one source for information and no one technique for gathering it. Techniques need to be sensitive to the particular teaching assignments of the instructor being evaluated and to the context in which the teaching takes place. If multiple perspectives are represented, the conclusions reached will be more credible and consequently of more value to the individual being evaluated. 344

Teaching Evaluation Guide Current evaluation practices at York vary. In many departments and units, teaching is systematically evaluated, but it is done primarily for summative purposes. Individual instructors are free, if they wish, to use the data so gathered for formative purposes or they can contact the Centre for the Support of Teaching, which provides feedback and teaching analysis aimed at growth, development and improvement. Without denying the value of summative evaluation of teaching, the main purpose of this guide is to motivate committees and individuals to employ more energy and resources in encouraging and engaging in formative evaluation.

What Is Good Teaching? All evaluation instruments contain implicit assumptions about the characteristics considered to constitute good teaching. These assumptions should be made explicit and indeed should become part of the evaluation process itself in a manner that recognizes teachers' right to be evaluated within the context of their own teaching philosophies and goals. First and foremost, then, "teaching is not right or wrong, good or bad, effective or ineffective in any absolute, fixed or determined sense" (Weimer 1990, 202). Teachers emphasize different domains of learning (cognitive, affective, psychomotor). They work at different sites (classrooms, laboratories, seminar rooms, studios, playing fields, field locations, etc.), using different techniques and resources (lecturing, demonstrating, coaching, facilitating discussions, etc.) with students of diverse backgrounds and levels of preparedness. They also can employ different theories of education and teaching methodologies: feminist, antiracist, critical, humanistic, etc. (adapted from Geis 1977). In one situation, teachers might see their role as transmitting factual information and in another as facilitating discussion and promoting critical thinking.

As variable and diverse as effective teaching might be, generalizations nevertheless can be made about its basic characteristics. Put succinctly, effective teaching is that activity which brings about the most productive and beneficial learning experience for students and promotes their independence as learners. Along with the information base of the course, this experience can include such factors as intellectual growth, change in outlook and attitude towards the discipline and its place in the academic endeavour and improvement in specific skills', for example, critical reading and writing, oral communication, analysis, synthesis, abstraction and generalization. The criteria for evaluating teaching can vary with the discipline and within the discipline, depending on the level of the course, the instructor's objectives and style and the teaching methodology employed. Nonetheless, the primary criterion must be improved student learning. Research indicates that the following are some of the characteristics that students, faculty and administrators alike agree are qualities of effective teaching: ability to motivate student learning and establish a positive learning environment providing appropriate challenges

345

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

concern for students' needs and welfare sensitivity to students' different learning styles fairness in evaluation procedures. For some methodologies — lecturing, for example — the following could also be indicators of effective teaching: organization of subject matter and course effective communication skills knowledge of and enthusiasm for the subject matter and for teaching availability to students effective choice of materials openness to student concerns and opinions. Some characteristics are more easily measured than others. Furthermore, since teachers are individuals and teaching styles are personal, it is all the more important to recognize that not everyone will display the same patterns of strengths — excellent teachers could be strong in many areas but not necessarily in all of them.

Formative Evaluation The purpose of formative evaluation is for instructors to find out what changes they might make in teaching methods or style, course organization or content, evaluation and grading procedures, etc., to improve student learning. Information and feedback are solicited from many sources (self, students, colleagues, consultants) and evaluation is initiated by the instructor. The data gathered are varied and are seen only by the instructor and, if desired, a consultant. Formative evaluation of teaching can be carried out at many points during an instruction period, as illustrated in the case study at the end of this article.

Summative Evaluation Summative evaluation of teaching, by contrast, is normally conducted by an academic unit at the end of a course for the purpose of assessing performance. This evaluation should involve a variety of techniques, including the results of teaching evaluations letters from individual students commenting on the effectiveness of the instructor's teaching, quality of the learning experience, and impact on their academic progress peer assessments based on classroom visits and reviews of curriculum material, scholarship on teaching and teaching dossier evidence of exceptional achievements and contributions in the form of awards, committee work, etc. There are two critical differences between summative and formative evaluation: the point of initiation and the use to which the information can be put. Summative evaluation is initiated by the unit and is used primarily to assess teaching performance.

346

Teaching Evaluation Guide Formative evaluation is initiated by the instructor and is used primarily to improve teaching and student learning. An important note: For the formative evaluation of teaching to be effective and achieve its purpose, it is crucial that the two processes of formative and summative evaluation be kept strictly apart. This means that the information gathered in a program of formative evaluation should not be used in summative evaluations unless volunteered by instructors themselves. It also means that people who have been involved in assisting instructors improve their teaching should not be asked to provide information for summative evaluation purposes.

Overview of Techniques for Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness This section describes a variety of techniques that teachers can use to evaluate their teaching effectiveness. Which techniques are chosen will depend on the intent of the evaluation. The following techniques are included: self-evaluation classroom observation measures of student achievement questionnaires letters and individual interviews focus groups analysis of instructional materials.1

Self-Evaluation Source: Self Description and Purpose: Self-evaluation can take the form of an informal self-reflection exercise, classroom assessments such as the One-Minute Paper or a formal written appraisal compiled, for example, using the Teaching Documentation Guide. Self-evaluation can be carried out for both formative and summative purposes. For formative purposes, it provides instructors with an opportunity to articulate their teaching philosophy, review their teaching goals and objectives and assess their areas of strength and difficulty. Where available, departmental course evaluation forms or the Teaching Documentation Guide can be used as a checklist to assist in identifying professional areas requiring further development. For summative purposes, self-evaluation can take the form of a teaching dossier. Benefits: Self-evaluation encourages teachers to become monitors of their own performance and promotes reflective practice. It is an excellent first step in planning a thoughtful and comprehensive teaching development program. Informal self-evaluation involves little formal data collection and takes very little time. A formal written appraisal, such as a teaching dossier, provides a context for assessing data about teacher performance gathered using other methods - this can be especially important in the tenure and promotion process as it puts other types of data in their

347

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

proper perspective. In addition, a teaching dossier can be sent to colleagues at other institutions for appraisal. Limitations: Self-evaluation is, by its very nature, biased and can rarely stand alone if used for summative evaluation. Some individuals find it very difficult to engage in critical self-evaluation or to be honest with themselves and others about their difficulties. Sample items from a self-evaluation form for instructors For each topic, instructors respond using the scale: 1 I don't believe I need help in this area. 2 This is a low priority for me at this time. 3 I'd like to find out more about this area. 4 I'd like to start doing this as soon as possible. Effective communication: a. Giving effective, well-organized lectures with clear goals. 1 2 3 b. Having students respond to questions I raise. 1 2 3 c. Having students formulate and ask questions related t o t h e topic. 1 2 3 d. Having students become involved in group discussions. 1 2 3

4 4 4 4

Classroom Observation Source: Peers (instructors from the same department) and colleagues (instructors from another department)2 Description and Purpose: In many respects, classroom observations complement student assessment of teaching. Although peers and colleagues are unlikely to be knowledgeable of the full extent of the teaching situation, they are able to comment on subject matter or teaching methodology from a professional perspective. Before visiting a class, the observer should meet with the instructor to discuss the instructor's teaching philosophy as well as the specific teaching objectives and teaching strategies that will be employed for the session to be observed. Classroom observation can be carried out for both summative and formative purposes. For summative evaluation, it is desirable that more than one person carry out these observations and that each observer visit more than one class. This will counteract observer bias towards a particular teaching approach and the possibility that an observation takes place on an unusually bad day. These precautions also provide for greater objectivity and hence reliability of the results. To ensure that a full picture of a teacher's strengths and weaknesses is obtained, some observers find checklists useful and some departments might choose to designate the task of making 348

Teaching Evaluation Guide classroom observations to a committee. As the range of activities going on in a class can be overwhelming, some observers find it helpful to focus on specific aspects (for example, presentation and interaction, not content). For this reason, colleagues who are unfamiliar with the content being taught can provide a different perspective than that of the instructor's disciplinary peers. Classroom observation is especially useful for formative evaluation. In this case, it is important that the results of the observations are confidential and are not also used for summative evaluation. The process of observation in this case should take place over time, allowing the instructor to implement changes, practise improvements and obtain feedback on whether progress has been made. It also can include videotaping the instructor's class. This process is particularly helpful to faculty members who are experimenting with new teaching methods. A particularly valuable form of classroom observation for formative purposes is peer pairing. With this technique, a pair of instructors provides each other with feedback on their teaching on a rotating basis, each evaluating the other for a period of time (anywhere between two weeks and a year). Each learns from the other and can learn as much in the observing role as when being observed. For guidelines for using this technique, see the previous section of this book. Benefits: Classroom observations can complete the picture of an instructor's teaching obtained through other less direct methods of evaluation. As well, observations are an important supplement to inconsistent student ratings in situations, for example, where an instructor's teaching is controversial because of experimentation, where non-traditional teaching methods are being used or where other unique situations exist within the classroom context. Peers are better able than students to comment upon the level of difficulty of the material, the relevance of examples chosen, knowledge of subject matter and integration of topics. Colleagues are better able than peers to place the teaching within a wider context and to suggest alternative teaching formats and ways of communicating the material. LJmitations:Thete are several limitations to using classroom observations for summative purposes. It is costly in terms of faculty time since a number of observations are necessary to ensure reliability and validity of findings. Teachers tend to find observations threatening and they and their students might behave differently when there is an observer present. There is evidence to suggest that peers are relatively generous evaluators in some instances. Since observers vary in their definitions of effective teaching and considerable tact is required in providing feedback on observations, it is desirable that observers receive training before becoming involved in providing formative evaluation. Finally, to protect the integrity of this technique for both formative and summative purposes, it is critical that observations for personnel decisions be kept strictly separate from evaluations for teaching improvement.

349

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Sample items to be considered when making a classroom observation The following are items that relate to an instructor's flexibility in instructional approach. Items can be rated using an appropriate scale or phrased as questions requiring fuller written responses. Scaled-response items:

Written response items:

Uses appropriate instructional techniques. Makes appropriate choices between presentation and discussion. To what degree does the instructor vary the instructional methods for the material presented? What other methods might be more appropriate?

Questionnaires Source: Students and, in some cases, alumni Description and Purpose: Student questionnaires and surveys are the most commonly used source of summative evaluation data. In many academic units they are mandatory and in several units they are standardized. For purposes such as tenure and promotion, data should be obtained over time using standardized questionnaires. Information obtained via questionnaires also can be used by individual instructors for improving subsequent incarnations of a course and for identifying areas of strength and weakness in their teaching by comparison to those teaching similar courses. Questionnaires are also useful in a program of formative evaluation if designed and administered by an instructor during a course. Benefits: The use of mandatory, standardized questionnaires puts all teaching evaluations on a common footing and facilitates comparison among teachers, courses and academic units. The data gathered also serve the purpose of assessing whether the educational goals of the unit are being met. Structured questionnaires are particularly appropriate where there are relatively large numbers of students involved or where there are either several sections of a single course or several courses with similar teaching objectives using similar teaching approaches. Questionnaires are relatively economical to administer, summarize and interpret. Provided that students are asked to comment only on items with which they have direct experience, student responses on questionnaires have been found to be valid. Research3 has identified the following eight dimensions of an instructor's teaching as especially important in identifying exemplary teaching: stimulation of interest in the course and its subject matter preparation and organization clarity and understandability sensitivity to and concern with students' level of understanding and progress clarity of course objectives and requirements 350

Teaching Evaluation Guide impact of instruction encouragement of questions and discussion openness to opinions of others. While questionnaire forms with open-ended questions are more expensive to administer, they often provide more reliable and useful sources of information in small classes and for the tenure and promotion process. Open-ended questions can provide insight into the numerical ratings. Limitations: Teachers have such different perspectives, approaches and objectives that a standardized questionnaire cannot adequately or fairly compare their performances. For example, the implicit assumption behind the design of many evaluation forms is that the primary mode of instruction is the lecture. Such a form will be inadequate in evaluating the performance of an instructor who uses collaborative or feminist teaching methods. One way to overcome this limitation and to tailor it to the objectives and approaches of a specific course or instructor is to design an evaluation form with a mandatory core set of questions and space for inserting questions chosen by the instructor. Recent research on the effects of gender on student ratings suggests that female professors tend to be judged more rigidly than male professors on a variety of dimensions, particularly in questions relating to students' interpersonal experiences with the teacher (for specific details see Basow 1994). Further, there is some evidence to suggest that student evaluations are biased against non-traditional teaching methods and curriculum and teachers from under-represented groups. Extreme caution should therefore be exercised to ensure that the data generated are interpreted in light of other sources of data. Another way to ensure fairness and equity is to ask students to identify the strengths of the instructor's approach as well as weaknesses and to ask for specific suggestions for improvement. Required courses are generally rated lower than elective courses. Care should therefore be taken to create an appropriate context for interpreting the data in comparison with other courses.

351

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Sample items from a student questionnaire 1. Rate the instructor on each of the items below using the following fivepoint scale: 1, Unsatisfactory; 2, Below Average; 3, Average; 4, Above Average; 5, Outstanding a . Presents material clearly a n d effectively. b . Responds t o concerns raised during class. c . Encourages questions a n d discussion.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

2. Please note what you think the instructor does well in teaching this course and what the instructor could do better. (Please be very specific): Instructor does well: Instructor could do better: Measures of Student Achievement Source: Faculty and appropriate administrators Description andPurpose:In some courses, a test or examination can measure teaching effectiveness explicitly. Ideally, data collected at the beginning of the course are compared with data collected at the end of the course to measure students' improvement on some relevant scale of knowledge, ability, etc. These profiles of achievement can be a good source of summative evaluation information. They are particularly effective in a situation characterized by large numbers of students or multiple sections working to a common syllabus with a common exam, and where the course goals are very specific. Benefits: Given similar student entry characteristics and teaching situations, this provides perhaps the most objective evidence of teaching effectiveness. Limitations: The "sameness" required for this method to be meaningful limits the number of situations in which it can be used. As differences in expectations or student assessment procedures enter the equation, the usefulness of this method for summative evaluation declines. The use of examination results to evaluate teaching can lead to instruction being geared to the exam. Letters and Individual Interviews Source: Students, alumni, peers Description and Purpose: Interviews and letters can be used to obtain greater depth of information for the purpose of improving teaching, or for providing details and examples of an instructor's impact on students for the purposes of teaching award nominations and the tenure and promotion process.

352

Teaching Evaluation Guide Benefits: Interviews and letters elicit information not readily available through questionnaires or student achievement records. Insights, success stories and thoughtful analyses are often outcomes of an interview or request for a written assessment of an instructor's teaching. Students who are reluctant to give information on a rating scale often respond well to a skilled, probing interviewer. Limitations:^^ disadvantage of letters is that the response rate can be quite low. The major disadvantage of interviews is time. Interviews can take about thirty minutes to arrange and approximately one hour to conduct, and another block of time must be allocated to coding and interpretation. A structured interview schedule can be used to eliminate the bias that can result when an untrained interviewer asks questions randomly of different students.

Sample structured interview questions Explain why you would or would not recommend Professor B's class to a friend. To what extent do you believe that Professor B's class prepared you for advanced work in the subject? Probes: Can you explain that in more detail? Can you give me an example of that? Can you explain the difficulty that you encountered?

Focus Groups Source: Students Description and Purpose: Data gathered in a focus group discussion involving about six to eight students chosen randomly from an instructor's class provide a rich description of an instructor's teaching because these data are based on students' individual opinions as well as their reflections on, and reactions to, the opinions of others. The discussion is carried out outside of class and preferably is facilitated by a colleague or peer. At the beginning of the group meeting, students are given about five minutes to write independently, describing which teaching behaviours they would like to see the instructor maintain and which they think that the instructor should change or improve. The items generated are then gathered and prioritized under the headings "maintain" and "improve." The facilitator then moves from item to item, alternating between the two columns, asking for clarification and examples to illustrate the points. At the conclusion of the discussion, the facilitator prepares an oral or written report. Benefits: Data generated in this way provide a very rich description of the strengths and weaknesses of an instructor's teaching and are probably the most effective way to 353

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

generate constructive criticism as well as positive reinforcement for successful strategies. This can be particularly helpful to instructors who are experiencing problems with their teaching, in which case it is important that the students are selected openly in front of the whole class and in the instructor's absence. This technique also provides useful feedback for instructors who are experimenting with new methodologies or are engaged in a program of self-improvement. This method can be used for summative purposes and provides an important supplement to the quantitative data generated by teaching evaluation forms. Limitations: The only limitation of this method is that it is time consuming. Training in the use of this technique is recommended and is available through the Centre for the Support of Teaching. Review of Instructional Materials Source: Self Description and Purpose: Instructional materials typically include some of the following: course outlines examinations quizzes assignments reading lists student manuals practicum requirements various audio-visual materials (overhead transparencies, videos, slides, computer software, etc). Many academic units require a course outline that highlights teaching objectives along with student performance expectations. The content contained within the resource materials can reflect the quality of thought and effort put into the planning and preparation for teaching. The materials can provide insight into the guidance and supervision provided to students outside the classroom setting. Gathering this material provides the instructor with an opportunity to assemble a teaching dossier, which is an essential component of a tenure and promotion file or teaching award nomination. The portfolio also can be useful to units in upgrading or reforming their curriculum. Benefits: A. review of instructional materials can instigate a professional exchange of information regarding the content being taught and research that might be integrated into the course. The data collected in this way provide a perspective on teaching not obtainable through classroom observations and also can enable an academic unit to maintain a curriculum focus. Evaluation of instructional materials by peers is a more reliable and valid measure of an instructor's teaching effectiveness than is asking students to assess the course materials. 354

Teaching Evaluation Guide

Limitations .'This initiative is time consuming and costly. It is also open to individual bias and so a standing committee within an academic unit could provide a formal, consistent and systematic approach to carrying out this initiative.

Case Study: Formative Evaluation in Practice The case that follows is fictitious. It has been devised to give the reader a practical illustration of how this guide, and the evaluation strategies outlined, might be used by an instructor to devise a systematic program of teaching development and improvement. Joseph Wilson is a prominent scholar of Canadian studies who has spent most of his working life teaching at a small university in Britain. Late in his career, he moves to Canada to be closer to his wife's family, and obtains a position as a professor of political science at a large urban university. On arrival in Canada, he learns that he is scheduled to teach, among other courses, a first-year half-course entitled "Canadian Politics." He is alarmed to learn that the enrolment in his class is expected to be about eighty-five students. Jo is confident of the subject matter of the course, but because he has never taught a class of this size before, he is less confident of his teaching abilities. For years he has taught only small graduate seminars or given individual tutorials to undergraduates. Earlier in the summer he had received a copy of the Teaching Evaluation Guide, which he has read, and he resolves to use its suggestions. "Canadian Politics" is a multisection course, most aspects of which are prescribed by the course coordinator. Jo has no choice over the course syllabus or the textbook and there is a common final examination. He can, however, cover the course topics in the order he prefers and choose his own supplementary reading materials and in-course evaluation procedures (quizzes, midterm examination, participation marks, etc.). In the weeks before the course begins, Jo spends some time preparing to teach. He drafts a detailed course outline containing a week-by-week schedule of the topics he will cover. He selects the supplementary readings, obtains copyright permission and has course kits made up for purchase by the students. Finally, he prepares detailed scripts for each of his three-hour lectures. The week before his first class, Jo confirms that the course enrolment is still around eighty-five and visits the lecture theatre. The room appears to be satisfactory. It has 120 tablet armchairs, two large chalkboards and a projection screen. Jo decides to order an overhead projector for each class. Week 1. Jo begins teaching and soon gets into the swing of things. This being his first experience teaching a large class, he is very sensitive to the classroom atmosphere. He notices, for example, that although the students are very attentive at the start of the class, after the first thirty minutes or so of the lecture their attention has wandered: feet and papers are shuffled, whispered conversations take place and some students stare blankly into space. Even after the break, the students seem less engaged. Jo is concerned about this. It is a real dilemma —if he carries on with his scripted lecture he can see that many students will learn little, but if he abandons the script he might not cover the required material.

355

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Jo has started the self-evaluation process. At the moment this is at the informal stage - he has recognized a problem and wants to deal with it. Week2. In the hope that the first class was atypical, Jo ploughs on with his second scripted lecture. The same thing happens. Although the students are physically present, he can see that he has lost them before the first half of the lecture is over and he knows that the second half of the class will be wasted if he continues in the same vein. In desperation, he ends his lecture and calls a break. While the students are on their break, Jo goes to the blackboard and writes down the following: Please answer the following questions: 1. Name one thing you like about the course. 2. Name one thing you dislike about the course. 3. Name one thing you would change in this course. Submit your answers anonymously to me, in writing, now! When the students return, he asks them to respond to the questions and gives them about two minutes to do so. Jo is using a simple, but highly effective, classroom assessment instrument (the One-Minute Paper) designed to elicit student opinion about the course.4 After collecting the One-Minute Papers, Jo realizes that there is not enough time to go through his prepared lecture, so he summarizes the main points he would have covered and asks the students to read the relevant chapter in the textbook. To his surprise, the students seem much more attentive and receptive to this than to his prepared lecture. When he reads the replies from the One-Minute Papers, a consensus emerges along the following lines: 1. Things I like about the course: Course director seems very organized, competent, knowledgeable and enthusiastic about subject. 2. Things I dislike about the course: Lecture format very dry; textbook not well related to subject; no opportunity for discussion; class too big. 3. Things I would change: Have a smaller class; allow more time for discussion and student participation. On the basis of this feedback, Jo decides it would be helpful to talk things over with a colleague more experienced with teaching large numbers of students, so he visits the Centre for the Support of Teaching. They suggest that he observe a class of a colleague from the Faculty of Law who is known for her expertise in participatory teaching methods. An appointment is made with Lorna Brown for two weeks ahead. In the meantime, Jo is advised to keep using the One-Minute Paper to break the lecture up and get feedback on student understanding of the material. It is also suggested that, since he is comfortable with the material he is teaching, he could improve his lectures considerably by talking to the students using notes in point form as a guide, rather than reading to them verbatim from his prepared scripts. 356

Teaching Evaluation Guide

Jo has now obtained some insight into what might be causing the problems he perceives with his teaching and has responded by seeking the advice and support of a colleague (a resource person from the Centre for the Support of Teaching or a colleague from another department). Week 3. Jo begins his next class by thanking the students for their comments on the One-Minute Papers. Briefly, he reports on his findings and tells the students that he will be doing what he can in the following weeks to respond to their concerns. He is concerned that students might not have learned the subject matter that he had not explicitly covered in the last lecture. Accordingly, he begins by assigning the following in-class exercise: Imagine you bump into an old school friend at the airport. Your friend is doing a degree in philosophy at the University of Western Ontario and is curious when she learns that you are doing your BA in political science. She asks impatiently, crWhat's all this controversy about Quebec separating? Why is this happening?" Your friend has only a few minutes before she has to rush off to catch her plane. Recognizing that you are talking informally to an educated person and have only five minutes, explain in writing the growth of separation in Quebec. Jo is using a "five-minute writing exercise," through which he achieves two goals: first, he can assess students9 understanding of a topic (a "student test of achievement") and second, he is allowing an opportunity for students to practise their writing and communication skills. Coincidentally, he is responding to the students who said they find the lecture format too dry and called for more participation in the class. Casual conversation during the coffee break informs him that the quiz came as a surprise to many students despite the fact that he had warned them in the first class that he might do this from time to time. For those students who had not done the assigned reading and thus performed poorly on the exercise, this exercise underscored the fact that the readings were an integral part of the course and that Jo was serious about the homework he assigned. Reading the papers after the class, Jo finds to his delight that not only had most students done the assigned reading, they had also understood the general idea of his topic, and most seemed able to communicate effectively in writing. Some students demonstrated a variety of writing problems and to them Jo recommended a visit to the appropriate writing centre to obtain assistance. Week 4. By arrangement through the Centre for the Support of Teaching two weeks earlier, Jo observes a class taught by Lorna Brown. After discussing the class with Lorna he decides to try out some of the techniques he observed in her class. He has already experimented successfully with talking from point-form notes rather than detailed scripts, but now he decides to try a format where he makes a short presentation of key topics and then the whole class participates in a case-study analysis. 357

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Observing a colleague teach is a powerful way to gain confidence in experimenting with new teaching methods. Jo tries this new method and enjoys the experience. Some students are still lost, but most become active and more interested participants. After a couple of weeks, Jo is becoming confident. His enthusiasm for this approach impresses one of his colleagues, who agrees to attend his next class and videotape it for him. After the class, Jo and his colleague discuss the course materials he is using and agree that they work well. Jo has used a peer to evaluate his teaching both through classroom observation and review of course materials. The videotape of his class will also enable others to benefit from Jo's experiences and will provide Jo with a useful source of further self-evaluation. Week 7. Jo administers his midterm test. By this time, Jo has become so excited about his approach to teaching that he sets an unusually challenging exam and most of his students do badly. To understand why this happened, Jo sets up a meeting with five of his students chosen at random. Jo has used a student test of achievement (again) and has set up a student focus group discussion to help him understand why the test results were so poor. The discussion shows clearly that there was a lack of correspondence between the expectations of the test and what had been covered in the course and assigned readings. Jo remedies this by setting a make-up test for all students who wished to upgrade their marks. Once again, the evaluation process has identified a problem in Jo's teaching and he has responded to it. The course proceeds with its ups and downs. At the end of the course the students write the common final exam. Jo is pleased when he learns that his students do well compared to students in other sections. A student test of achievement has shown superior performance in this section. Providing the allocation of students to course sections was made in a random fashion, and since the final examination was common to all sections, this could be taken, within the context of other evaluation data, to support an argument that the teaching in this section of the course was more effective than in other sections. Prior to the final exam, all students were asked to complete a departmental course evaluation questionnaire. Seventy of Jo's original students return the questionnaire. The quantitative responses of Jo's students are tabulated in the chart below.

358

Teaching Evaluation Guide

End-of-year student evaluation results Poor Fair Average Good Excellent The course textbook is The course materials are The course director's organization was The course director's presentation was The assignments and grading were My overall assessment of the instructor is

2 0 0 0 5 0

40 10 0 0 10 0

20 40 25 25 10 30

8 15 35 35 35 35

0 5 10 10 10 5

A standard course evaluation questionnaire (highly structured) shows results that are better than average in all categories that are under the control of the teacher. The only category to score below average (the choice of textbook) was beyond the control of the teacher. In addition to the quantitative assessments, students were also encouraged to write comments on the back of the forms. Jo reads these carefully and notes that, in addition to the difficulties he had identified for himself during the course, more than one student commented on the fact that he moves about too much while teaching, and this is distracting. However, many of the students also take this opportunity to praise Jo for his performance. Students seemed to be particularly impressed by the trouble Jo went to during the course to evaluate his performance and his adaptability when faced with a problem. Jo has now used an open-ended student questionnaire to evaluate his teaching. Although it is too late to make any further changes in this course, the summative information gathered in this way can be used to improve his teaching in subsequent courses. As a result of this experience, Jo resolves to do the following: 1. To approach the course coordinator with a view to selecting a more appropriate textbook. 2. To recommend a smaller class size. 3. To learn more about interactive teaching techniques such as case study methods and small-group discussion. 4. To use a greater variety of teaching approaches in future teaching assignments. 5. To continue to incorporate student feedback into his teaching activities. Jo completes his teaching experience with a final stage of self-evaluation. This will enable him to build on his experiences and grow as a teacher.

359

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Notes 1. This section borrows from Centra (1987). 2. At York, a faculty member can also work with a member of the Centre for the Support of Teaching's Teaching and Learning with Colleagues Network, but note that members of the network are not available to observe classes for the purpose of summative evaluation. 3. See, for example, The Teaching Professor % (4): 3-4. 4. For a discussion of the One-Minute Paper and the variety of uses to which it can be put, see the articles in Section VIII, Parti.

References Armstrong, H. 1990. The Centennial College professional growth system. Toronto: Centennial College. Basow, Susan A. 1994. Student ratings of professor are not gender blind. http://www.awm-math.org/ articles/newsletter/ 199409/basow,html Centra, John, et al. 1987. A guide to evaluating teaching for promotion and tenure. Akron, MA: Copley Publishing Group. Geis, George L. 1977. Evaluation: Definitions, problems and strategies. In Teaching is important., C. Knapper et a/(eds.). Toronto: Clarke Irwin in association with CAUT. Weimer, Mary Ellen. 1990. Improving college teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

360

Part Five: Teaching Documentation Guide

Teaching Documentation Guide Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning York University

Purpose This document is designed to provide guidance in assembling material to document an instructor's teaching achievements for use in tenure and promotions submissions, teaching award nominations, applications for leave fellowships and teaching development grants, merit competitions and job applications and transfers. In addition, the guide can contribute to good teaching by stimulating self-analysis and self-development as a teacher.1 For tenure and promotion, this guide is intended to reduce the uncertainty inherent in compiling this documentation so that initiating units, working in close collaboration with the candidate, can assemble and organize the items for inclusion in the file. A file cogently and thoroughly documenting teaching will assist units in putting forward the strongest case for tenure and promotion.

Need for the Guide There is a common perception that teaching is not easily evaluated, whereas research achievements are fairly easy to assess. This guide is designed to counteract that perception and provide users with an easy-to-use template for presenting evidence of teaching accomplishments. Undoubtedly, documenting teaching activities does require considerable effort and planning. As well, if it is not well done, your teaching might not get the credit it deserves, and a tenure and promotion committee, in turn, might not have the evidence to enable it to give good teaching as much weight as good research. Unfortunately, it might not be at all clear, particularly to new teachers, how to go about documenting teaching achievements.

Scope of the Guide The guide is intended to be as comprehensive as possible to provide you with a wide range of options for documenting your teaching. Consider the unique elements of your teaching style, the subject matter you teach and other concerns (such as the type 361

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

of course, the level and the number of students) and then select the items from the guide that are most relevant to your teaching. If a particular activity has not been listed but you think it is relevant to your teaching responsibilities, you should include it. Furthermore, you should not feel obliged to include in your documentation every item described in this guide.

Suggestions for Proceeding What follows are suggestions for items that might be included in your teaching dossier, your curriculum vitae (CV) and/or your tenure and promotion file. A teaching dossier provides a description of your approach to teaching and an elaboration of some of the items on your CV that best illustrate your teaching practices and achievements. The teaching section of your CV contains a comprehensive listing of your teaching activities and achievements. The teaching section of a tenure and promotion file, compiled by the initiating unit, consists primarily of assessment letters from colleagues and students and summaries of teaching evaluations. The teaching dossier — or an excerpt, depending on its length —might be included in the teaching section of your tenure and promotion file, or appended to it, to provide a context within which your teaching performance can be evaluated. 1. Ideally, you should begin gathering and retaining information that pertains to your teaching from the first day of your first teaching assignment. When making decisions about what to retain and what to discard, remember that it is better to err on the side of saving too much than to risk destroying material that could prove useful later. Keep copies of all items you refer to in your teaching documentation, such as examination outlines, original copies of course evaluations (unless they are kept by your unit), letters from chairpersons or students, samples of students' work, etc. These materials will not necessarily be included on your CV or in your teaching dossier, but should be retained by you in case "original" evidence is required. There should be a sentence in your CV assuring the reader that such material is available. 2. It might be helpful to consult your departmental mission statement (where possible), the university's academic plan, the sections on teaching in the senate tenure and promotion documents (at York, the blue book and orange book) or other relevant documents to identify the goals, priorities and expectations of the university concerning teaching and teaching excellence. 3. Examine the Summary of Teaching Contributions (below) and select those areas and items that are most applicable to your teaching. Prepare a list of statements about your accomplishments in each area. 4. In the teaching section of your CV, summarize your teaching contributions. Be sure to include your graduate and undergraduate teaching and your contributions to curriculum and course developments, but also highlight your strengths in other areas, where appropriate, in your teaching unit.

362

Teaching Documentation Guide

5. What should you do if you have an item that cuts across two categories? Examples include work on departmental curriculum review that could be counted as teaching or as service, or publication of a workbook that could be counted as teaching or as scholarship. While a single activity can have many different aspects that shed light on your performance in different categories, these items should not be listed twice. In such cases, it is best to work with the committee preparing your file to develop an appropriate strategy. This should enable you to decide where to list the item and where to provide a cross-reference (for example, you might list it under service and make reference to it under teaching). 6. You might wish to include as an appendix a few representative samples of materials that illustrate accomplishments referred to in your teaching dossier (for example, an exemplary course outline, unsolicited letters from students or a particularly innovative assignment outline.) A one-page reflection on the samples would enhance their value. 7. The Centre for the Support of Teaching has a collection of materials that support the development of teaching documentation as well as copies of model submissions. These could serve as useful supplements to this guide.

Approach to Teaching 1. Philosophy You might wish to include a brief description of your teaching philosophy and a statement of your general teaching objectives in your teaching dossier. Examples of statements of objectives from specific course descriptions, including statements concerning the changes you expect or are trying to accomplish in your teaching, also might be included as an appendix. 2. Teaching Practices Evidence of commitment to teaching can be provided by outlining your teaching strategies and the steps you have taken to evaluate or improve the effectiveness of your classroom teaching. As well, the introduction of innovations in the classroom can illustrate a scholarly approach to your teaching and a commitment to improving instruction. Examples might be included to illustrate the following: teaching methods (for example, lecture method, small-group discussions, problem solving, collaborative inquiry, critical-thinking pedagogy, feminist pedagogy, project-based approaches, student presentations, etc.) procedures used to evaluate student learning, including an outline of the types of assignments and examination methods, where appropriate lists of course materials, special notes, hand-outs, problem sets, laboratory books, computer manuals, etc. if relevant to your teaching methods arrangements made to accommodate special students needs teaching developments undertaken (course design; curricular changes to include gender, race and class; subject matter; methods of presentation; classroom 363

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

processes; evaluation procedures; specially designed assignments; teaching methods geared to developing critical skills; and developments involving teaching resources such as films, computers and other audio-visual material) and, where possible, evidence of the effectiveness and impact of the teaching developments you have undertaken. 3. Professional Development Professional development includes all steps taken to improve a teacher's effectiveness. The following types of documentation could be included: description of steps taken to evaluate and respond to problems arising in a course, and that might inform the redesign of the course results of evaluations you have designed for specific courses to provide you with a final assessment of the effectiveness of your teaching list of seminars, workshops and conferences on teaching methods attended (internal and external) descriptions of any provisions you have made to improve the classroom climate, or your teaching methods, to ensure free and open participation and the comfort of all your students regardless of gender, race, class, sexual orientation or disability of any kind.

Summary of Teaching Contributions The following items, where applicable, could be included in the teaching section of your CV; you might wish to elaborate on some of them in your dossier. It could be that some of those who will review your teaching performance have little knowledge of your discipline or of the pedagogy appropriate to achieving the teaching objectives in your area. 1. Classroom Teaching List the titles and numbers of courses taught, in eluding graduate, undergraduate and reading courses; indicate with asterisks courses you have developed or substantially revised. Indicate the number of students in each course and describe your workload, including, where appropriate, the number of teaching assistants assigned to assist you in the course. Provide details of other teaching activities, such as supervision of a teaching or research practicum, athletic coaching, field placement supervision, coaching in the performing arts, etc. Document teaching that has contributed to the achievement of awards and honours by your students. 2. Supervision Supervision differs from classroom teaching in a number of respects; for example, it is typically done on a one-to-one basis, there is no set curriculum and it can be 364

Teaching Documentation Guide extremely time consuming. To allow for an assessment of the extent of your contribution in this area, you might wish to provide data describing the average supervision load in your department. Documentation of supervision activity should include the names of those supervised and the nature and extent of the supervisory activity. In some cases, it also might be useful to indicate the outcome of the supervision (for example, the thesis title and acceptance date, citation information of a student publication or dates and venues of public performances.) The following list indicates some examples of supervisory activities that might be documented.

a. Graduate Supervision PhD dissertation supervision; indicate whether you were the supervisor or a committee member Masters' thesis supervision; indicate whether supervisor or committee member Supervision of graduate independent study or directed readings.

b. Undergraduate Supervision Honours thesis supervision; indicate whether supervisor or committee member Supervision of undergraduate independent study or directed readings.

c. Student Achievement Supervision that has contributed to publications or conference presentations by students.

3. Teaching Awards or Nominations Document all teaching awards you have received, including both York (departmental, faculty, university) and external awards. Nominations for awards also can provide an indication of your reputation as a teacher. Where possible, provide information regarding the nature of the award (how many are given, the adjudication procedure, etc.).

4. Teaching-Related Activities The following local, college-, faculty- and university-level activities related to teaching could be included in your CV with appropriate details. (See Suggestions for Proceeding, above.)

a. Departmental Activities There is a variety of activities that do not take place in the classroom but that do provide important support for teaching within a department. The following list includes some of the activities that can contribute to strengthening departmental teaching. The documentation could include details such as names of committees, dates, the nature of your contribution and the names of committee chairs and collaborators.

L Membership on Departmental Committees List all activities concerned with teaching that you have undertaken as a member of a departmental committee, subcommittee or task force (for example, curriculum development, program review). 365

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

ii. Teaching Development A cdvides Providing professional development for teaching assistants (for example, teaching practicum supervision, departmental orientation sessions, sessions that introduce specific techniques) Providing professional development for faculty (for example, orientation sessions for new faculty, sessions that introduce teaching techniques or technological developments) Observing teaching as part of formal or informal evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Hi. Development of Resources Development of department teaching resources (for example, a department computer instruction station, a teaching materials resource centre, a reference map collection). iv. Development of Awards Describe your role in establishing, adjudicating or administering awards or honours for student achievement. v. Other Coordination of multisection, sequenced or interrelated courses Organization of departmental retreats. b. University-Wide Activities L Membership on Relevant University Committees Senate committees (such as the Academic Policy and Planning Committee, the Committee on Curriculum and Academic Standards and the Committee on Teaching and Learning) College and faculty committees (such as academic policy and planning or curriculum committees) Other committees, standing or ad hoc, that deal with teaching or matters concerned with teaching. ii. Cooperation With Other Units and Bodies Describe the use that instructors in other departments, colleges, faculties or universities have made of your teaching materials. List your involvement in program review of other teaching units. List workshops, seminars or invited lectures presented. Describe your involvement in providing consultation to instructors in other units on improving teaching effectiveness. Include development of widely used course evaluations or other assessment instruments. Describe your teaching involvement outside your unit.

366

Teaching Documentation Guide

5. Publications and Professional Contributions This section documents your achievements in developing the theory and practice of teaching. All publications on teaching should be included. When listing papers and workshop presentations, it would be helpful to include information about the nature of your audience and your contribution. (See Suggestions for Proceeding, above.) a. Curriculum Materials Include details of published and unpublished curriculum materials, textbooks, workbooks, case studies, lab manuals and other classroom materials that you have developed. b. Research and Professional Contributions List books (including chapters in books, edited books and special issues of journals), articles (indicate whether refereed, solicited or non-refereed), papers in conference proceedings (indicate whether refereed or non-refereed), bibliographies, newsletters, unpublished conference papers, workshop presentations and unpublished professional reports. c. Funding List internal and external research grants and teaching development grants and fellowships received.

Evaluation of Teaching Listed below are examples of the different types of documentation generally used for evaluating teaching, and that might be included in your teaching dossier. For tenure and promotion purposes the initiating unit generally collects this material. summaries of teaching evaluations initiated by your unit, where possible results of evaluations that have been initiated by students, where possible letters from students selected at random and from students and teaching assistants identified by the candidate peer evaluations based on visits to the classroom where they exist, objective indicators of student progress, such as proficiency tests or examples of students' work "before" and "after." The Centre for the Support of Teaching has a collection of materials concerning the preparation of course evaluation instruments. These materials might prove useful to those instructors whose departments do not already routinely evaluate teaching. See also the Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning's Teaching Evaluation Guide.

367

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM

Notes 1. This Guide was adapted to suit the York University context from Shore et a/(1986).

References Shore, Bruce M., era/1986 (revised edition) The CAUTguide to the teaching dossier: Its preparation and use. Ottawa: CAUT.

368

Contributors Teferi Adem is an Advisor at the Centre for Race and Ethnic Relations at York University. Robert Adolph is an Associate Professor of Humanities in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Keith Aldridge is a Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences in the Faculty of Pure and Applied Science at York University. Dawn Bazely is an Associate Professor of Biology in the Faculty of Pure and Applied Science at York University. Katherine Bischoping is an Associate Professor of Sociology in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Betty Braaksma is a former Associate Librarian in the Scott Library at York University. Pat Bradshaw is an Associate Professor in the Schulich School of Business at York University. Rae Bridgeman (Anderson), a graduate of the PhD Programme in Social Anthropology, is currently an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Architecture and Adjunct Professor of Anthropology at the University of Manitoba. She is also a research associate in York's Department of Anthropology. Linda Briskin is an Associate Professor of Social Science in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Janet Broomhead, former editorial assistant at York's Centre for the Support of Teaching, is a graduate of the BA Programme in Humanities and English at York University. James Brown, former Associate Director of York's Centre for the Support of Teaching, currently teaches Business History and Ethics through Calumet College and the Schulich School of Business. He is also Senior Executive Officer in the Office of the Vice President (Administration) at York University. Jackie Buxton is a PhD candidate in the Graduate Programme in English, and was a member of the Teaching Assistants' Resource Group of York's Centre for the Support of Teaching. Gary Bunch is a Professor of Education at York University. Ken Carpenter is an Associate Professor of Economics in the Faculty of Arts and of Visual Arts in the Faculty of Fine Arts at York University. Jon Caulfield is an Associate Professor of Social Science in the Faculty of Arts at York University.

369

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM Sarah Clarke, a graduate of the Ph.D Programme at the Schulich School of Business, is currently living in the United States. Austin Clarkson is Professor Emeritus of Music in the Faculty of Fine Arts at York University. Katie Coulthard (Caldwell), a graduate of the BEd Programme in Education and BA Programme in Math, is a high school teacher in the York Region. Mary-Louise Craven is an Associate Professor of Social Science in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Myriam deBie Waller is an Associate Lecturer in French Studies in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Paul Delaney is Associate Lecturer in Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Pure and Applied Science at York University. Annie Dionne was a PhD candidate in York's Graduate Programme in Political Science. Nick Elson is an Associate Lecturer in Languages, Literatures and Linguistics in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Bob Everett is an Assistant Secretary of the University and teaches in the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Arts at York University. M. Brock Fenton is a Professor of Biology in the Faculty of Pure and Applied Science and in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, and former Associate Vice President of Faculties and Research. Markka Fleming was an undergraduate student at York University. Jerry Ginsburg is an Associate Professor of History in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Barbara Godard is an Associate Professor of English in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Kenneth Golby is an Associate Professor of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Leslie Green is a Professor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts and of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. Ian Greene is an Associate Professor of Political Science in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Tom Greenwald is an Associate Lecturer in the Centre for Academic Writing in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Femida Handy is an Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at York University. Carl E. James is an Associate Professor of Education at York University. Nancy Johnston, a graduate of York's PhD Programme in English, currently teaches at Ryerson Polytechnic University. Miriam Jones, a graduate of York's PhD Programme in English, currently teaches at the University of New Brunswick. Dalton Kehoe is an Associate Professor of Social Science in the Faculty of Arts at York University. 370

Contributors Reg Lang is a Professor in Environmental Studies at York University. Paul Laurendeau is an Associate Professor of French Studies in the Faculty of Arts at York University. David Leyton-Brown is Professor of Political Science and former Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies at York University. Mary Lou McKenna is a Writing Instructor in the Centre for Academic Writing, Faculty of Arts at York University. Kathryn McPherson is an Associate Professor of History in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Roy Merrens is Professor Emeritus of Geography in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Louise Morrison is an Associate Lecturer in French Studies in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Deepika Nath, a former assistant professor at the Schulich School of Business at York University, is currently working for a market research firm in Boston. Janice Newton is an Associate Professor of Political Science in the Faculty of Arts and former Faculty Associate at the Centre for the Support of Teaching at York University. Catherine Ng, a graduate of the MBA Programme at the Schulich School of Business, is now teaching in the Department of Management at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Hugh Parry is a Professor of Humanities in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Jan Rehner is an Associate Lecturer in the Centre for Academic Writing, Faculty of Arts at York University. Pat Rogers is Professor of Education and Mathematics and is Academic Director of the Centre for the Support of Teaching at York University. Leslie Sanders is Associate Professor of English and Humanities at Atkinson College at York University. Sue Sbrizzi is Assistant to the Chair of the School of Women's Studies and former Administrative Assistant at York's Centre for the Support of Teaching. Rachel Aber Schlesinger is an Associate Professor of Social Science in the Faculty of Arts at York University. John Spencer is an Associate Lecturer in the Centre for Academic Writing, Faculty of Arts at York University and former Faculty Associate at the Centre for the Support of Teaching. Molly Ungar was a PhD candidate in History at York University, and now lives in Hamilton. Jana Vizmuller-Zocco is an Associate Professor of Languages, Literature and Linguistics in the Faculty of Arts at York University. Elizabeth Watson is an Associate Librarian in the Business and Government Publications Library at the Schulich School of Business at York University.

371

VOICES FROM THE CLASSROOM Page Westcott is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Glendon College at York University. Karen Whalen is an Associate Lecturer in French Studies in the Faculty of Arts, and former Faculty Associate at the Centre for the Support of Teaching. Marc Wilchesky is Chair of the Counselling and Development Centre at York University. Margaret Willis is a Writing Instructor in the Centre for Academic Writing, Faculty of Arts at York University. Alan Yoshioka, a graduate of York's Masters Programme in Environmental Studies, subsequently completed his PhD in the History of Science, Technology and Medicine at Imperial College, University of London. He currently teaches at York and is a researcher for a pharmaceutical company.

372